Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On When Election Commission Can Skip Bye-Election Under Section 151A RP Act

A seat that fell vacant in March 2023 and a House whose term was due to end in June 2024: Section 151A RP Act, which sets a six-month window for filling casual vacancies, is now before the Supreme Court on when the Election Commission may decline to hold a bye-election, and judgment has been reserved.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Supreme Court of India and the Election Commission of India's Nirvachan Sadan, where judgment was reserved on the Election Commission's duty under Section 151A of the RP Act.

New Delhi: Reserving judgment on how Section 151A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is to be read, the Supreme Court has heard the Election Commission of India’s challenge to a December 2023 Bombay High Court direction to hold a bye-election for the Pune Lok Sabha seat [Election Commission of India v. Sughosh Joshi and Another].

The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sandeep Mehta recorded “Judgment reserved” in its order of October 6, 2026. Counsel were allowed to file fresh detailed written submissions within a week.

How the Pune seat came to court

The seat fell vacant on March 29, 2023, on the death of the sitting member, and the term of the 17th Lok Sabha was due to end on June 16, 2024. The Election Commission chose not to hold a bye-election and issued a certificate under Section 151A citing difficulty, including its engagement with preparations for the 2024 general election and the short period the new member would serve. Pune voter Sughosh Joshi challenged that decision before the Bombay High Court.

The High Court, on December 13, 2023, directed the Commission to hold the bye-election. It held that the one-year exception is tested on the date the vacancy occurs, that the Commission could not adopt a “sliding scale” by letting months pass and then citing the shrinking remainder of the term, and that “difficulty” does not cover administrative inconvenience or the preoccupation of its personnel with other elections.

In January 2024, the Supreme Court stayed that direction and observed that the interpretation of Section 151A needed consideration.

What Section 151A says

A casual vacancy in Parliament or a State Legislature must be filled by a bye-election within six months of the vacancy. The requirement does not apply where the remainder of the member’s term is less than one year, or where the Election Commission, in consultation with the Central Government, certifies that holding the election within the period is difficult.

Where the parties part ways

According to the Election Commission, the six months available to it for holding the bye-election must be counted when deciding whether the one-year exception applies. The respondents contest that approach and stress the statutory right of a constituency to representation. They also claim that the Commission has applied Section 151A inconsistently across different vacancies. The Pune seat question itself is no longer live, since the 17th Lok Sabha’s term ended on June 16, 2024 and a new House has been elected.

The question for the Court is whether the Commission must hold a bye-election when a seat falls vacant with more than a year left in the term, but the passage of the six-month statutory period would bring the remainder below one year. The Court has expressed no view on the merits.

What rides on the reserved judgment

The reserved judgment will fix how Section 151A is read for every future casual vacancy: whether the one-year exception is tested on the date of the vacancy or after allowing for the six months the Commission is given. The answer decides how long a constituency can be left without a representative when a seat falls vacant in the second half of a House’s term.

Case Title: Election Commission of India v. Sughosh Joshi and Another [SLP(C) No. 200 of 2024, tagged with SLP(C) No. 10567 of 2024]
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 6, 2026
Appearances: Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, and Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG, for the Election Commission; Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Senior Advocate, Mr. Ritin Rai, Senior Advocate, and Mr. Uday Bhatia, Advocate, among others, for the other parties

Similar Posts