The record
Written by software from the 1 report below. The points restate them; where one says why it matters, that is Prism's reading, not a reported fact.
- A lawyer filed a public interest litigation asking for a system to force legislators to pay for by-elections caused by their premature resignations.
- The petitioner also sought to bar these individuals from contesting elections for five years.
- The Madras High Court dismissed the petition, stating that creating such rules is a matter for the legislature rather than the judiciary.
- The court noted that existing laws do not grant the Election Commission of India the power to create new disqualifications or financial penalties.
Who said what3
Only words found exactly in the article are shown, attributed and linked to the line they came from.
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Chief Justice of the Madras High Court
3 quotes · 1 outlet
“Relief cannot be granted. It is for the legislature to legislate. We cannot legislate”
In the article
…A bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and justice G Arul Murugan said the reliefs sought would require creating new features of electoral law and could not be introduced through a judicial order. “ Relief cannot be granted. It is for the legislature to legislate. We cannot legislate ,” the court said while dismissing the PIL filed by a lawyer, K Suthan. Deep Dive The plea was filed after six MLAs elected in the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections resigned shortly after the results. The petitioner…
“In the case at hand, what is sought is not disclosure of an existing fact, but the creation of an entirely new disqualification, viz., a bar on contesting elections for five years, and a forfeitable financial deposit calculated on a case-by-case basis with reference to public expenditure”
In the article
…information about candidates, including their criminal antecedents, assets and educational qualifications. It had not created a new disqualification or imposed a financial condition on the right to contest elections. “ In the case at hand, what is sought is not disclosure of an existing fact, but the creation of an entirely new disqualification, viz., a bar on contesting elections for five years, and a forfeitable financial deposit calculated on a case-by-case basis with reference to public expenditure ,” the bench said. The court noted that neither measure had any basis in the Constitution or the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It said the EC did not have an independent power under Article 324 to add new…
Coverage1
All filed from India
Named India · Chief Electoral Officer, Tamil Nadu · Election Commission of India · G. Arul Murugan · K Suthan · Madras High Court · Supreme Court of India · Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
The 1 report is listed beside the record.
Corrections and versions
A correction says what was wrong and why. Every earlier headline and brief of this record is kept.
Something wrong?
Say what, and it arrives with this record's address filled in. A correction is welcome.
Ask this story
Answers cite the reports above, or say they can't.