The Madras High Court has declined to intervene in the legislative domain by dismissing a petition seeking to compel candidates contesting multiple constituencies to undertake financial liability for bye-elections triggered by their resignation. The judgment reaffirms that electoral reforms, including cost allocation for bye-elections, remain within the exclusive domain of Parliament, absent any statutory provision.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, K. Mani, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Chief Election Commissioner of India to require candidates contesting elections in more than one constituency to file a separate affidavit. This affidavit would legally bind them to bear all election expenses incurred by the Election Commission in the event they resign from one of the constituencies after winning both.
Key Facts
The petitioner is a private individual with no direct personal interest in any pending election
The petition is filed pro bono publico, seeking systemic reform in electoral practices
No specific candidate or election is identified as the subject of the petition
The petitioner does not allege any violation of his fundamental rights or any specific administrative action
The petition seeks a general rule applicable to all future candidates contesting multiple constituencies
Procedural History
28.04.2026: Writ Petition (WP(MD) No.12161 of 2026) filed before the Madras High Court
28.04.2026: Hearing conducted; no advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioner
28.04.2026: Court delivered judgment dismissing the petition
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner’s Position:
Contended that candidates contesting multiple constituencies create avoidable financial and administrative burdens on the public exchequer through bye-elections
Argued that requiring an affidavit to bear such costs would deter frivolous multi-seat candidacies and ensure accountability
Cited the Election Commission’s 2004 recommendations as a basis for judicial intervention
Respondents’ Position:
No appearance was made on behalf of the respondents
The Court noted the absence of any counter-submission or official stance from the Election Commission or State authorities
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
A writ of mandamus directing the Chief Election Commissioner to frame and enforce a rule requiring candidates contesting multiple constituencies to file a separate affidavit
The affidavit to contain an undertaking that the candidate shall bear all expenses incurred by the Election Commission for the bye-election in the constituency they resign from
The amount to be determined by the Election Commission, with reference to past bye-election expenditures
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the High Court, under Article 226, can compel the Election Commission to introduce a mandatory financial liability mechanism for candidates contesting multiple constituencies, in the absence of any statutory provision under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the Election Commission of India’s 2004 Proposals for Electoral Reforms, which recommended either:
A complete ban on multi-seat candidacies, or
A statutory requirement for candidates to deposit Rs. 5,00,000 for State Assembly elections and Rs. 10,00,000 for Lok Sabha elections to cover bye-election costs.
The petitioner argued that judicial intervention was warranted to prevent misuse of the existing legal framework under Section 33(7), which permits dual candidacies but imposes no financial accountability. He contended that the Court could invoke its writ jurisdiction to enforce public interest and prevent wastage of public funds.
For the Respondent
No arguments were presented by the respondents, as no advocate appeared on their behalf. The Court proceeded on the basis of the statutory framework and the absence of any legislative mandate.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by examining Section 33(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which permits a candidate to contest from up to two constituencies in a single election. The provision, the Court noted, was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India (2023) 5 SCC 668. The Supreme Court held that the choice to permit dual candidacies is a matter of legislative policy, and absent manifest arbitrariness or violation of Articles 14 or 19, courts cannot strike it down.
"Permitting a candidate to contest from more than one seat in a Parliamentary election or at an election to the State Legislative Assembly is a matter of legislative policy... Parliament is legitimately entitled to make legislative choices and enact or amend legislation."
The Court emphasized that while the Election Commission’s 2004 recommendation to impose financial liability on candidates is well-reasoned and aligned with public interest, it remains a recommendation. No legislative amendment has been enacted to give it legal force.
The Court further held that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used to create new statutory obligations. Mandamus lies only to compel the performance of a public duty already imposed by law. Since no provision in the Act or any rule framed thereunder requires candidates to bear bye-election expenses, the Court cannot impose such a duty by judicial fiat.
The Court also observed that the petitioner’s petition, while framed in public interest, sought to circumvent the legislative process. Judicial activism cannot substitute for legislative action, particularly in areas involving complex policy trade-offs between electoral freedom, administrative efficiency, and fiscal responsibility.
The Verdict
The writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that there is no legal basis to direct the Election Commission to require candidates to file affidavits undertaking liability for bye-election expenses. No order as to costs was made. The existing legal position under Section 33(7) remains unchanged: candidates may contest two constituencies without any financial obligation to cover the cost of subsequent bye-elections.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Judicial Restraint in Electoral Policy Matters
Practitioners must recognize that courts will not create new electoral obligations absent statutory backing
Writ petitions seeking to impose financial liabilities on candidates without legislative authority are unlikely to succeed
Public interest litigation in electoral reform must be channeled through legislative advocacy, not judicial mandate
The Limits of Election Commission Recommendations
Recommendations by the Election Commission, however well-intentioned, do not create enforceable legal duties
Until such recommendations are codified into law, they remain advisory and non-binding
Advocates should not cite Commission reports as legal grounds for relief in court unless incorporated into statute or rules
Strategic Implications for Candidates and Parties
Candidates contesting multiple seats continue to face no financial penalty for triggering bye-elections
Political parties may exploit this gap to field high-profile candidates in multiple constituencies as a strategic tactic
Civil society groups must now focus on lobbying Parliament for legislative amendment to implement the 2004 recommendations
