ECI defers bypolls for five Tamil Nadu seats until election petitions are disposed

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has informed the Madras High Court that it will not notify bye-elections to five Assembly constituencies in Tamil Nadu until the election petitions challenging the victories of the previous MLAs are decided. The constituencies are Tiruchi East, Perundurai, Ambasamudram, Viralimalai, and Karur.

The submission was made in a counter affidavit filed before the First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan. The affidavit was filed in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) petition by K. Venkatachalapathy of Tirunelveli, who had sought directions for holding the bypolls.

Tamil Nadu Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) Archana Patnaik, in the affidavit, stated: “The commission does not propose to announce or notify bye-elections until the election petitions challenging the election of the returned candidates in the five constituencies are decided.”

The CEO explained the legal reasoning behind the decision. In the 1967 Supreme Court judgment in Sanjeevayya versus The Election Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, it was held that the ECI was not bound to hold a bye-election if an election petitioner had sought to declare himself or herself as the returned candidate. The apex court had observed that if a petitioner challenged the victory of the returned candidate and also moved an application under Section 84 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to declare himself or herself as the returned candidate, then holding a bye-election before the disposal of the election petition could create competing claims to the same seat.

In 1996, Parliament introduced Section 151-A to the RP Act, prescribing a six-month timeline for holding bye-elections from the date the vacancy arises. However, in the 2010 case of Election Commission of India versus Telangana Rashtra Samithi, the Supreme Court held that Section 151-A could not be interpreted in a way that renders Section 84 ineffective. Both provisions must be construed harmoniously. The affidavit noted: “Hence, a constituency in which an election petition seeking a declaration under Section 84 is already pending, is not available for bye-election on occurrence of a casual vacancy.”

The CEO also informed the court that Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay, S. Jeyakumar, E. Subaya alias Esakki Subaya, C. Vijayabaskar, and M.R. Vijayabhaskar had won from the five constituencies in May 2026 but had subsequently resigned. However, because election petitions have been filed in each of these constituencies, with petitioners also seeking to be declared as the returned candidates, the ECI does not intend to hold bye-elections at this stage.

The court took the counter affidavit on file, adjourned the writ petition to September 8, 2026, and extended an interim order from July 10, 2026, which restrains the ECI from notifying the bypolls for these five constituencies until further orders.