The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 27) issued notice on a plea asking whether a legislator who resigns after being elected on one party's ticket in order to re-contest from another party should have to bear the cost of the bye-election that the resignation makes necessary, Live Law reported. A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana called for responses from the Union government, the Election Commission of India, the Chief Electoral Officer of Tamil Nadu, the Secretary of the State Legislative Assembly and the former MLAs concerned.
Source: Live Law
The petitioner, practising advocate K. Suthan, has challenged a Madras High Court judgment of September 24 that dismissed his public interest litigation. The plea seeks a direction to frame an 'Election Expenditure Security' mechanism, under which a legislator resigning without a legally recognised compelling reason would deposit an amount equal to the cost of the resulting bye-election before being allowed to contest again, Nation Press and LawChakra reported. It also seeks a five-year disqualification from elections for such legislators.
Source: LawChakra
The case arises from Tamil Nadu, where, according to the petition, six AIADMK members — S. Jayakumar, Maragatham Kumaravel, P. Sathyabama, Dr Esakki Subbaya, C. Vijaya Bhaskar and M.R. Vijayabhaskar — resigned their seats within weeks of the Assembly election results being declared on May 4 and joined the ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), The Hindu BusinessLine reported. The petitioner contends, as an allegation yet to be tested, that the resignations let the legislators sidestep disqualification proceedings initiated over alleged defiance of the party whip during a confidence motion, while the public exchequer pays for the bye-elections.
Source: The Hindu BusinessLine
"A seat in the Legislature does not belong to the person who sits in it. It belongs to the people who sent him there," the petition states, as quoted by The Hindu BusinessLine. "When a Member abandons that vote within weeks, not for any compelling cause but to change sides, he does not merely leave a seat. He breaks the trust on which representative democracy rests." The petitioner argues the public ought not to be made to pay twice for the same seat because of an individual's personal or political choice to give it up.
Source: The Hindu BusinessLine
Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam, appearing with Advocate-on-Record Merlyn Rachel J for the petitioner, argued the case before the bench, LawChakra reported. The court has issued notice only and has not yet examined the merits of the plea; the claims above are the petitioner's contentions, which the respondents will now answer.
Source: LawChakra