Madras High Court imposes ₹1 lakh costs on petitioner over PIL seeking election-expense reimbursement from six ex-MLAs, calling it publicity-driven

The petitioner, describing the proceedings as a public interest litigation, sought a direction to the Election Commission of India to act on his representation dated 30 June 2026.

He asked the Court to require respondents 3 to 8, former MLAs, to reimburse election expenses incurred for the election held on 23 April 2026, alleging that their resignations were not genuine and had breached voters’ rights under Article 19(1)(a).

The petitioner contended that the resignations were unlawful and had financial implications.

The Court noted that it had already dismissed a petition raising the same issue in K. Suthan v. Union of India, W.P. No. 37274 of 2026, by order dated 24 September 2026.

Whether the Court should direct the Election Commission to act on the petitioner’s representation and require the former MLAs to reimburse election expenses on the grounds pleaded.

Whether the present petition should be dismissed with costs, given the Court’s prior consideration of the issue and the petitioner’s persistence in re-arguing it.

The petition invoked Articles 324 and 190(3)(b) of the Constitution in relation to the Election Commission’s powers and the alleged genuineness of the resignations, and Article 19(1)(a) in relation to voters’ rights.

The Court relied on its earlier decision in K. Suthan v. Union of India, which had dismissed a petition raising the same issue on the ground that the Court could not legislate.

The Court noted that the issue had already been considered in the earlier petition, in which respondents 3 to 8 were also parties, and that the earlier petition had been dismissed on the ground that the Court could not legislate.

Despite being put on notice of that decision, the petitioner persisted in making submissions.

The Court considered the present petition to have been filed for publicity and out of vested interest, and dismissed it with costs.

It further directed the Registry to initiate appropriate recovery action if the costs were not paid.