NE LEGAL BUREAU
CHENNAI, AUG 28
Tamil Nadu’s five-seat by-election puzzle has acquired a sharper legal edge, with Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay asking the Madras High Court to remove the very restraint that has kept the Election Commission from moving ahead with the polls. In a strongly worded counter-affidavit, Vijay has challenged the maintainability and bona fides of the PIL seeking to block the by-elections, arguing that keeping the constituencies vacant indefinitely would ultimately hurt the very voters whose interests the petition claims to protect.
- Vijay seeks vacation of restraint on five Tamil Nadu Assembly by-elections
- CM attacks PIL as a “proxy war” lacking bona fides and public interest
- He warns indefinite delay would deny lakhs of voters elected representation
- ECI says no bypolls until pending election petitions are decided
- Five-seat controversy now turns on meaning of “clear vacancies” under Section 151-A
- Madras HC keeps interim restraint alive till September 8
Vijay’s plea comes against the backdrop of a continuing judicial freeze on bypoll notifications for Tiruchirappalli (East), Perundurai, Ambasamudram, Viralimalai and Karur. The High Court had initially restrained the ECI on July 10 after advocate K Venkatachalapathy argued that the vacancies could not automatically be treated as “clear vacancies” under Section 151-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, while election petitions challenging the original victories remained pending.
The court subsequently extended the restraint to September 8. Meanwhile, the ECI told the High Court that it had no proposal to announce the five bypolls until the pending election petitions were disposed of, relying on Supreme Court precedent concerning the interplay between Sections 151-A and 84 of the Representation of the People Act.
‘Proxy war’, not public interest, Vijay contends
Seeking dismissal of the PIL with exemplary costs, Vijay contended that the petitioner lacked the locus standi to maintain the proceedings and could not effectively prosecute a cause based on election petitions filed by third parties.
He argued that, even assuming there was a legitimate concern about postponing a by-election, the proper persons to seek such relief would be the election petitioners themselves, particularly because they had challenged the elections and sought consequential relief.
Vijay pointed out that no such application appeared to have been filed by the election petitioner concerning Tiruchirappalli (East).
Hence, he alleged that the petitioner was waging a “proxy war”, making the PIL liable to be dismissed at the threshold.
‘Where is the public interest?’
Vijay further contended that the petitioner was not personally aggrieved and that no elector from the constituencies had raised the issue cited in the PIL.
The petition, therefore, could not legitimately claim to advance public interest, he argued, adding that the petitioner appeared to have approached the court with ulterior motives and lacked bona fides.
The central question is consequently not merely whether the five constituencies are vacant, but whether the vacancies can be subjected to the statutory by-election process while the validity of the original elections remains under judicial challenge.
Lakhs of voters caught in the legal crosshairs
Vijay’s counter-affidavit makes a larger democratic argument: prolonged postponement of the bypolls would leave several lakh voters without elected MLAs to represent their interests, grievances and constituency-level concerns.
He therefore contended that the petition, if allowed to indefinitely prevent the by-elections, could operate against rather than in favour of the larger public interest.
The argument comes at a time when the ECI itself has maintained that it will wait for the pending election petitions to be resolved before proceeding with the bypolls.
The five-seat legal conundrum
The controversy stems from the unusual sequence following the 2026 Assembly elections.
Vijay had won from both Perambur and Tiruchirappalli (East) and subsequently retained Perambur, resigning his Tiruchirappalli (East) seat. The other four vacancies arose after S Jayakumar (Perundurai), Esakki Subbiah (Ambasamudram), C Vijayabaskar (Viralimalai) and M R Vijayabaskar (Karur) resigned.
At the heart of the PIL is the argument that election petitions challenging these victories remain pending. The petitioner has contended that holding bypolls before those cases are decided could create an extraordinary situation: if an original election is later declared void and another candidate is declared duly elected, a subsequent bypoll could potentially produce conflicting claims to representation. The July 10 order recorded this concern as a significant issue requiring judicial scrutiny.
ECI’s stand adds another layer
The legal position has meanwhile become more complicated because the ECI has itself told the High Court that it will not notify the bypolls until the election petitions are decided.
The Commission has cited Supreme Court judgments which, according to its submission, require Section 151-A governing by-elections and Section 84 concerning election petitions to be construed harmoniously, rather than allowing one provision to render the other ineffective.
The High Court has consequently kept the interim restraint in force and will take up the matter again on September 8.
The next hearing could therefore prove crucial—not merely for the five constituencies, but for the broader question of how the statutory requirement to fill Assembly vacancies interacts with pending challenges to the very elections that created those vacancies.
