Former MLAs C. Vijayabaskar, M.R. Vijayabhaskar urge Madras High Court to vacate stay on conduct of bypolls
MLAs of Viralimalai and Karur, C. Vijayabaskar and M.R. Vijayabhaskar, have urged the Madras High Court to vacate an interim order passed by it on
MLAs of Viralimalai and Karur, C. Vijayabaskar and M.R. Vijayabhaskar, have urged the Madras High Court to vacate an interim order passed by it on July 10, 2026, restraining the Election Commission of India (ECI) from notifying bye-elections in these two constituencies, besides three others. In their vacate stay applications, the former MLAs said that the court had passed the interim order even before issuing notices to them on a public interest litigation (PIL) petition and without taking into consideration the factual positions with respect to the Viralimalai and Karur constituencies. Vijayabaskar said that he had emerged victorious by securing 1,05,773 votes from the Viralimalai constituency in the 2026 Legislative Assembly elections. P. Murugesan of the TVK came second by securing 43,700 votes and K.K. Chellapandiyan of the DMK secured the third place with 40,397 votes. While Mr. Murugesan did not file any election petition challenging the victory of the returned candidate within the statutory time limit of 45 days, thereby waiving his right to file such a petition in the future too, it was only Mr. Chellapandiyan who had filed an election petition, the applicant said.
Vijayabaskar also brought to the notice of the High Court that his resignation was accepted by the Legislative Assembly Speaker on June 16, 2026, whereas the election petition was filed only on June 17, 2026. Therefore, the vacancy arose a day earlier, necessitating a bye-election, he said. Even otherwise, there exists absolutely no chance of the election petitioner being declared the winner even if his election petition gets allowed in the future, since he had secured only the third place and not the second place in the Viralimalai constituency, the vacate stay applicant highlighted. He said, there was no possibility of any anomalous situation, as apprehended by the PIL petitioner K. Venkatachalapathy of Tirunelveli, of the constituency being represented by two MLAs if the bye-election was allowed to be conducted now and the election petition getting allowed in the future. Karur MLA’s contention In his vacate stay application, Mr. Vijayabhaskar said that the PIL petitioner, through his counsel V.R. Shanmuganathan, had obtained an interim order restraining the ECI from notifying bye-elections to the Tiruchi East, Perundurai, Ambasamudram, Viralimalai, and Karur Assembly constituencies on the sole ground that election petitions had been filed with respect to those constituencies.
He complained that the PIL petitioner had failed to place on record the constituency-specific factual details. “The extraordinary jurisdiction of this court has been invoked on assumptions rather than a complete and accurate disclosoure of material facts,” the application read. Stating that he had won from the Karur constituency in May this year by securing 71,542 votes, before submitting his resignation on June 29, 2026, the applicant said, his nearest rival candidate V.P. Mathiyalagan of the TVK could be declared a winner after allowing his election petition only if there had been a two-cornered contest. “A runner-up in an 80-candidates contest is not automatically entitled to be declared elected merely because the returned candidate’s election is challenged or even set aside. Consequently, no real possibility exists of V.P. Mathiyalagan or any other candidate acquiring a competing title to represent Karur even assuming that my election is declared as void,” he said.
The BriefWire