The Madras High Court has cleared the decks for the conduct of byelections in two more constituencies in Tamil Nadu, by rejecting an election petition with respect to the Perundurai constituency and striking off a plea to declare the runner-up in the Ambasamudram constituency as the returned candidate.
Justice P.B. Balaji on Thursday (October 1, 2026) refused to reject an election petition filed by a voter challenging the victory of Esakki Subaya from the Ambasamudram Legislative Assembly constituency, but struck off the relief sought by the election petitioner to declare the runner-up, V.P. Durai of the Congress party, as the winner.
The judge dismissed an application filed by Mr. Subaya, who had won as an All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) candidate but resigned from his MLA post before joining the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), to reject the election petition preferred by S. Kanthimathinathan.
He, however, allowed another application filed by the resigned MLA to strike off the relief sought by the election petitioner Kanthimathinathan under Section 84 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to declare Mr. Durai, who had lost by 10,245 votes, as the returned candidate after allowing the election petition.
The judge agreed with senior counsel Satish Parasaran, for Mr. Subaya, that when there were more than two candidates who had contested in an election, the runner-up could not automatically be declared as the elected candidate if the election petitions get allowed and that the only course open would be to order fresh elections.
“In the present case, I am conscious of the fact that despite being the returned candidate, the first respondent (Mr. Subaya) has resigned from his MLA post and the electorate remains unrepresented as on date. But, for the prayer sought for invoking Section 84 of the R.P. Act, read with Section 101 of R.P. Act, the Election Commission would be clearly well within its right to conduct a fresh election,” Justice Balaji wrote.
He also said: “The relief sought for under Section 84 of R.P. Act by the first respondent is impeding such conduct of a fresh election, which has left the constituency headless and clearly resulting in failure of the democratic process… In such view of the matter, I do not see why this Court should not exercise power under Order VI Rule 16 of Civil Procedure Code and strike off the relief sought for under Section 84 of R.P. Act.”
The judge, however, said, the election petition that had challenged the victory of Mr. Subaya on the ground of having allegedly indulged in electoral corrupt practices must go for trial.
Justice Balaji’s order striking off the relief sought under Section 84 of the R.P. Act assumes significance in light of the fact that Ambasamudram was one of the five constituencies where byelections had been stalled by the first Division Bench of the High Court on the ground that conduct of bypolls pending the plea under Section 84 might end up in an anomalous situation of those constituencies being represented by two individuals.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan on July 10, 2026, restrained the Election Commission of India (ECI) from notifying bypolls to Tiruchi East, Perundurai, Ambasamudram, Viralimalai, and Karur, while passing interim orders on a public interest litigation petition filed by K. Venkatachalapathy from Tirunelveli.
After the grant of the interim order, the ECI filed a counter affidavit before the Division Bench stating that it, too, does not intend to conduct bypolls to those five constituencies.
However, after the filing of the counter affidavit, Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy of the High Court on September 8, 2026, rejected the election petition filed against the victory of S. Jayakumar, who had won from the Perundurai constituency as an AIADMK candidate but resigned from his MLA post before joining the TVK.
Hence, in the written submissions filed before the first Division Bench during the final hearing on the PIL petition, the ECI urged the Bench to exempt Perundurai alone from its interim stay order.
The ECI told the court that byelection could be conducted for the Perundurai constituency if the Supreme Court does not grant any stay and if the Division Bench exempts that constituency alone from the five constituencies where bypolls had been stalled.
During the hearing of the PIL petition on Thursday, senior counsel G. Masilamani, representing Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay, brought Justice Balaji’s order to the notice of the Division Bench and said, the ECI would have to now conduct byelections to both the Perundurai and Ambasamudram constituencies.
He said, even with respect to the rest of the three constituencies, the ECI “could not fold its hands and say it shall not conduct bypolls merely because the election petitioners with respect to those constituencies had sought a declaration under Section 84 of the R.P. Act.”
After hearing the arguments advanced by all the counsel, the Division Bench reserved its judgment on the PIL petition filed through advocate V.R. Shanmuganthan.
Published – October 01, 2026 11:41 am IST
