Tamil Nadu byelections: Centre defers to ECI as Madras High Court weighs five vacant seats

The Union government told the Madras High Court on Tuesday that it would leave the question of conducting byelections to five vacant Assembly constituencies in Tamil Nadu to the Election Commission of India (ECI), stepping back from a dispute that has been argued in court over several hearings.

The constituencies concerned are Tiruchi East, Perundurai, Ambasamudram, Viralimalai and Karur. The seats fell vacant after this year's general elections to the 234-member Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay, who won from two constituencies, resigned from Tiruchi East and retained Perambur.

The submission was made before the first Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, which is hearing a public interest litigation petition filed by K. Venkatachalapathy of Tirunelveli. The petitioner has asked the court to direct that the byelections not be held until election petitions relating to those constituencies are decided.

Additional Solicitor General AR.L. Sundaresan told the Bench that he had received a two-page note from the Union Ministry of Law and Justice asking him to leave the matter to be argued by the ECI.

Advocate General Vijay Narayan, appearing for the Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, said he could not take sides in the matter and therefore had nothing to argue on the petition.

Senior counsel G. Masilamani, appearing for Mr. Vijay, contended that the ECI must revise its decision not to hold the byelections until the election petitions are disposed of. He argued that the question of an election petitioner or another candidate being declared the returned candidate, should a petition succeed, would arise only if just two candidates had contested the seat.

All 234 constituencies saw multi-cornered contests in this year's general elections, the senior counsel submitted, and hence there was no possibility of any constituency having two representatives if a byelection were held before an election petition was decided.

He also questioned the petitioner's locus standi, or legal standing, to file the case, and pointed out that none of the election petitioners had approached the court seeking to stall the byelections.

Senior counsel Satish Parasaran and Gopal Sankaranarayanan made their submissions on behalf of the resigned MLAs Esakki Subaya and M.R. Vijayabhaskar.

The Bench adjourned the matter to Wednesday, when it is to hear senior counsel Dama Seshadri Naidu, assisted by Niranjan Rajagopalan, for the ECI.

What the case turns on

The dispute centres on the timing of the byelections. Under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the result of an election may be challenged through an election petition in the High Court, and a petitioner who succeeds can be declared the returned candidate. The petitioner before the Madras High Court contends that holding a byelection before such petitions are decided could create complications over who legitimately represents the constituency.

Counsel for the Chief Minister disputes this, arguing that the multi-cornered nature of the contests makes such an outcome unlikely. The ECI, for its part, has so far taken the position that the polls should await the disposal of the election petitions, a stand the Chief Minister's counsel has asked the court to examine.

The court has not yet ruled on the petition. The ECI is expected to place its position before the Bench on Wednesday.