Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea To Recover Bye-Election Costs from legislators who resign their seats and seek re-election, in a petition that asks for a deposit mechanism to protect public funds.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has issued notice on a special leave petition asking that a legislator who resigns and then contests the resulting bye-election be made to deposit the cost of that election, calling for responses from the Union of India, the Election Commission of India, the Chief Electoral Officer of Tamil Nadu and the former MLAs concerned [K Suthan v. Union of India and Others].
The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana heard Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam, who appeared with Advocate-on-Record Merlyn Rachel J for the petitioner. The Court has not yet examined the merits, and the contentions below are those of the petitioner.
How the case reached here
After the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections, six elected AIADMK members resigned soon after the results were declared: S Jayakumar, Maragatham Kumaravel, P Sathyabama, Dr Esakki Subbaya, C Vijaya Bhaskar and MR Vijayabhaskar. Their resignations made bye-elections necessary in their constituencies, and the petitioner, a practising advocate, says these are paid for from public funds.
He moved the Madras High Court seeking a direction to the Election Commission and the Tamil Nadu Chief Electoral Officer to frame an ‘Election Expenditure Security’ mechanism, and a five-year bar on contesting Parliamentary or Assembly elections for legislators who resign voluntarily without compelling reason. A Division Bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the writ petition, holding that the question was one for the Legislature and that the Court could not convert a legislative or executive option into a judicial command. The Bench described the plea as publicity litigation and ordered the petitioner to pay Rs 1 lakh to the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority.
What the petitioner argues
Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner urged that the public ought not to be made to pay twice for the same seat. He frames two questions for the Court. The first is whether a security that a candidate must deposit at nomination, refundable if the candidate wins and forfeited if the candidate loses, where that candidate caused the bye-election by resigning, is a regulatory condition like the deposits under Sections 34 and 158 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, rather than a disqualification under Article 191 of the Constitution. The second is whether the public trust doctrine extends to the electoral mandate and to public money spent on securing it.
The petition also sought interim relief in the form of a stay on the bye-elections in Madurantakam and Dharapuram, or alternatively a stay on counting and declaration of results, and a direction to the Election Commission and the Chief Electoral Officer to place on record the actual or estimated expenditure on bye-elections in seven Tamil Nadu constituencies. No ruling on those interim prayers has been reported.
The legal position
Under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, a vacancy in a legislature caused by resignation is to be filled by a bye-election, and a resigned member is not, by that fact alone, barred from contesting it. The petition asks the Supreme Court to examine whether a refundable deposit could be introduced as a regulatory step, which the High Court regarded as a matter of legislative policy. Issuing notice means only that the respondents must now respond, and it expresses no view on the plea.
Case Title: K Suthan v. Union of India and Others [SLP(C) No. 36231 of 2026]
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Date: October 2026 (notice issued)
Appearances: Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam and Advocate-on-Record Merlyn Rachel J, for the petitioner