New Delhi: The Supreme Court has issued notice on a plea seeking a mechanism to recover the public expenditure incurred on bye-elections from elected representatives who voluntarily resign from their seats without compelling circumstances and subsequently seek to contest the polls again.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, sought responses from the Union government, the Election Commission of India (ECI), the Chief Electoral Officer of Tamil Nadu, and six former MLAs who resigned from their seats in the state, among others.
The plea, filed by advocate K. Suthan, challenges a judgment of the Madras High Court dismissing his public interest litigation (PIL) seeking financial accountability for legislators whose voluntary resignations necessitate bye-elections at public expense.
The petitioner has sought directions to introduce an “Election Expenditure Security” mechanism under which a legislator resigning without a legally recognised compelling reason would deposit an amount corresponding to the cost of the resulting bye-election before contesting it again.
He has also sought a five-year disqualification from contesting elections for such legislators.
The petition contends that six AIADMK legislators resigned from their seats within weeks of the Tamil Nadu Assembly election results being declared on May 4, and subsequently joined the ruling party.
Their resignations came after disqualification proceedings had been initiated against some of them for allegedly voting against their party whip during a confidence motion.
According to the plea, the resignations enabled the legislators to avoid the pending proceedings and seek re-election under a different political banner, while the resulting bye-elections imposed an unnecessary financial burden on the public exchequer.
It further argues that the poll panel had recommended, in its 2004 proposals for electoral reforms, that candidates who cause bye-elections by giving up their seats should bear the associated expenses, but the recommendation has remained unimplemented.
The petitioner approached the Supreme Court after the Madras High Court declined to grant the reliefs sought, holding that the proposed financial security and five-year disqualification would introduce new substantive features into electoral law.
The High Court observed that the reliefs sought involved the creation of a fresh financial and punitive regime, which fell within the domain of legislative policy rather than judicial directions.
“The right to resign from a legislative seat is itself a facet of the constitutional scheme governing membership of a House and cannot be burdened with extra-statutory conditions by judicial order,” the High Court had held on September 24.
(IANS)
