When a Congress MLA was asked to repay ₹21.58 lakh salary after his election was set aside

Published 20 July 2026 · politics

In 2006, P. Veldurai, a Congress candidate, contested the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections from the Cheranmahadevi constituency in Tiruneveli district and emerged victorious. The runner-up

In 2006, P. Veldurai, a Congress candidate, contested the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections from the Cheranmahadevi constituency in Tiruneveli district and emerged victorious. The runner-up, P.H. Manoj Pandian of the AIADMK, challenged his election in the Madras High Court on a technical ground. Mr. Pandian contended Mr. Veldurai had a subsisting contract with the State Highways Department at the time of filing his nomination papers. This went against Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which disqualified candidates holding government contracts from contesting in elections. The Madras High Court, however, dismissed the election petition. Pandian then approached the Supreme Court on the issue. In April 2011, the Supreme Court set aside Veldurai’s election, holding that he was disqualified at the time of filing his nomination. Though Veldurai contended he had taken steps to terminate the contracts before contesting, the court ruled the termination was not carried out in accordance with the prescribed legal procedure. Hence, the apex court set aside his election. However, by the time the verdict was delivered, Veldurai had completed his full five-year tenure as MLA, during which he participated in Assembly proceedings and received the emoluments attached to the office.

Since his election was set aside, in August 2011, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Secretariat issued a demand notice to Veldurai directing him to repay ₹21.58 lakh. The amount included the salary, allowances and other emoluments paid to him during his tenure, along with a penalty calculated at ₹500 per day for attending Assembly sittings. Veldurai approached the Madras High Court, challenging the recovery proceedings. His principal contention was that the payments made to him were for services rendered as a legislator. He argued that he had discharged his duties in good faith, and the benefits received could not be retrospectively withdrawn merely because his election was later declared void. He also relied on provisions of the Representation of the People Act, particularly Section 107(2), which protects the validity of acts and proceedings undertaken by a member even if the election is subsequently set aside. Further, Veldurai contended that at best he could be liable for the statutory penalty under Article 193 of the Constitution, which deals with penalties for sitting and voting despite disqualification, but not for refunding the entire salary and allowances. The State, however, contended that once an election is declared null and void, the legal effect is that the individual is deemed never to have been a validly elected member.