The Madras High Court refused to stay the Election Commission of India’s decision to de-register political parties that did not contest elections for six years. The Court said restoring their status at this stage would amount to granting final relief before the case is fully heard.
The Madras High Court on Wednesday refused to give interim relief to several political parties that have challenged their de-registration by the Election Commission of India (ECI). The parties were removed from the list of registered political parties for not contesting elections conducted by the Commission for many years.
A Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan was hearing a batch of petitions, including the case titled Tamizhaga Makkal Munnertra Kazhagam Vs Chief Election Commissioner. The political parties had requested the Court to stay the ECI’s orders of de-registration so that they could retain their status as registered political parties and participate in upcoming elections.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Defers RTI Petitions Targeting Political Party Transparency
However, the High Court made it clear that granting such a stay at this stage would practically restore their recognition and allow them to contest elections, which would amount to granting final relief even before the case is fully decided.
The Court said,
“At this stage, we are of the view that granting an interim order staying the effect and operation of the order of the ECI would amount to allowing the writ petitions and granting a status, by interim measure, of registered political parties in forthcoming elections to the legislative assembly,”
The Bench noted that it was not disputed that the petitioner political parties had not contested Parliamentary or State Assembly elections for a continuous period of six years. In view of this, the Court found that the balance of convenience was not in favour of the petitioners.
Rejecting their request for interim protection, the Court observed,
“Learned counsel for the ECI is right in submitting that balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the petitioners as they have not contested in parliament or legislative assembly elections continuously for six years,”
At the same time, the High Court acknowledged that the matter raises an important constitutional question. It pointed out that the issue of whether the Election Commission has the authority to de-register political parties when there is no express provision in the law is a serious question that requires detailed examination. The batch of petitions has now been listed for final hearing in the second week of March 2026.
The petitions challenge the de-registration of several Tamil Nadu-based political parties, including Tamizhaga Makkal Munnertra Kazhagam, Manithaneya Makkal Katchi, Manithaneya Jananayaga Katchi, All India Party for the Protection of Civil Rights, and Akhila India Janayaka Makkal Katchi. The ECI had removed these parties from its list of registered political parties on the ground that they had failed to contest any election conducted by the Commission within a six-year block.
The petitioners argued that the Representation of the People Act, 1951 allows registration of political parties under Section 29A but does not contain any specific provision that permits de-registration. They relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Indian National Congress (I) v Institute of Social Welfare and contended that de-registration is allowed only in exceptional situations, such as when a party has obtained registration through fraud or has abandoned constitutional principles.
According to the petitioners, the six-year rule framed by the ECI is based only on executive guidelines and cannot create new legal grounds for de-registering political parties. They argued that in the absence of a clear statutory provision, the ECI does not have the power to remove a party from the register merely because it has not contested elections for a certain period.
On the other hand, the Election Commission defended its action by relying on its wide constitutional powers under Article 324 of the Constitution of India. The Commission argued that where the law is silent, it can issue binding guidelines to ensure free and fair elections and to maintain the integrity of the electoral system.
The ECI also informed the Court that the six-year participation requirement was introduced after it was found that several registered political parties were receiving large donations and claiming income-tax exemptions despite not participating in elections.
ALOS READ: Will Political Parties Finally Come Under RTI? Big PIL to Be Heard in Court Tomorrow
Senior Advocates S Prabhakaran, R Srinivas, NL Rajah and P Wilson appeared for the petitioners. Advocates Abisha Isaac, John Vincent, Gowtham Kumar and Amogh Simha also represented the political parties.
The Election Commission was represented by Senior Advocate G Rajagopalan along with Advocates Niranjan Raja Gopalan and E Vijay Anand.
With the refusal of interim relief, the political parties will remain de-registered for now. The final decision of the High Court in March 2026 is expected to clarify the scope of the Election Commission’s powers and could have a significant impact on how political parties are regulated in India.
Case Title:
Tamizhaga Makkal Munnertra Kazhagam Vs Chief Election Commissioner
Read Order:
Click Here to Read More Reports on Political Parties
