How can ECI render case against byelections to five Tamil Nadu constituencies infructuous, wonders CM Vijay’s counsel
You don’t have any Active Subscription.
Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay. File | Photo Credit: ANI
Senior counsel G. Masilamani, representing Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay, on Monday (September 28, 2026) argued that the Election Commission of India (ECI) cannot make a case pending before the Madras High Court infructuous by deciding not to conduct byelections to five vacant Legislative Assembly constituencies in Tamil Nadu until the disposal of the election petitions connected to them.
Commencing final arguments before the first Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, the senior counsel said that the ECI had failed to clarify whether it had taken the decision suo motu or on a representation made by K. Venkatachalapathy of Tirunelveli, who had filed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition against the conduct of bypolls to the five constituencies.
The PIL plea had sought to restrain the ECI from conducting bypolls in the Tiruchi East, Perundurai, Ambasamudram, Viralimalai, and Karur Assembly constituencies since election petitions had been filed with respect to them. However, in its counter-affidavit, the ECI told the court that the Commission itself does not intend to notify byelections to those five constituencies until the disposal of the election petitions.
Highlighting the ECI’s submission before the court, the PIL petitioner’s counsel, V.R. Shanmuganathan, said that the other respondents (including the Chief Minister, who had won from two constituencies but vacated the Tiruchi East seat after retaining Perambur) in his case could not object to the ECI’s decision in a PIL filed by his client and that they must file separate writ petitions challenging the Commission’s decision.
Madras High Court rejects plea challenging election of DMK whip E.V. Velu from Tiruvannamalai constituency
On the other hand, Mr. Masilamani argued that the court was entitled to mould the relief in a PIL petition filed under Article 226 (writ jurisdiction of High Courts) of the Constitution. He said that the powers of the High Court were very wide under its writ jurisdiction and that it could even discharge the PIL petitioner from the case and substitute someone else or even continue it as a suo motu PIL petition.
Mr. Masilamani also told the court that the people of those five constituencies could not remain unrepresented in the Legislative Assembly for long. Since his arguments remained unconcluded and senior counsel Dama Seshadri Naidu for the ECI and senior counsel Gopal Sankaranarayanan for resigned MLA M.R. Vijayabhaskar of Karur were also yet to argue, the judges decided to continue the hearing on Tuesday (September 29, 2026).
Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.
We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.
