The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice on a plea seeking a mechanism to recover the public cost of bye-elections from elected representatives who voluntarily resign their seats without compelling circumstances and then contest the polls again, news agency IANS reported.

Source: IANS

A Bench of Chief Justice of India 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 the six former MLAs named in the plea, among others.

The plea, filed by advocate K. Suthan, challenges a Madras High Court judgment that dismissed his public interest litigation seeking financial accountability for legislators whose voluntary resignations force bye-elections at public expense.

What the plea asks for

Suthan has sought an 'Election Expenditure Security' mechanism: a legislator who resigns without a legally recognised compelling reason would have to deposit an amount equal to the cost of the resulting bye-election before being allowed to contest again. The plea also seeks a five-year disqualification from elections for such legislators.

According to the petition, six AIADMK legislators resigned within weeks of the Tamil Nadu Assembly election results being declared on May 4 and subsequently joined the ruling party. The petitioner contends — an allegation the respondents are yet to answer in court — that the resignations came after disqualification proceedings had been initiated against some of them for allegedly voting against their party whip during a confidence motion, and let them sidestep those proceedings while the public exchequer paid for the bye-elections.

The plea also points to the Election Commission's 2004 electoral-reform proposals, which, it says, had recommended that candidates who cause bye-elections by giving up their seats should bear the associated expenses — a recommendation it says was never implemented.

Why the High Court had said no

The Madras High Court had declined the reliefs, holding that the proposed financial security and disqualification would create a fresh regime that belongs to 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 held on September 24, according to reports of the judgment.

Source: Nation Press

The Supreme Court has not examined the merits of the proposal at this stage; issuing notice only means the respondents must now file their replies.