High CourtsDivision Bench(2015) 02 MAD CK 0053

C. Udayachandrika vs The Secretary and Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly and Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 10 February 2015

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J. · M.M. Sundresh, J.
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 3308 of 2015 and M.P. No. 1 of 2015

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 277 words

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J.—The petitioner seeks a declaration from this Court that the seat of Selvi J. Jayalalitha, Member of the Legislative Assembly, representing 139 Srirangam Assembly Constituency, has not fallen vacant from the date of her conviction as published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette, Extraordinary No. 223 dated 8.11.2014, and the letter of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly dated 8.11.2014. Other than saying that she is a public-spirited person, there is nothing else stated. It has been stated that the First Parliament ought to have suitably modified or deleted or amended the Representation of People Act, 1950 (Act 43 of 1950) and the Representation of People Act, 1951 (Act 43 of 1951), which created new Houses of Parliament. Thereafter, other than stating about Articles, 324, 327, 328 and 329, there is really nothing else set out in the petition.

2.

The affected party never approached the Court making a grievance qua the declaration of her seat as vacant or not in accordance with law. The election was notified and is now scheduled to be held shortly, when this petition has been filed and we are unequivocally of the view that this is a publicity exercise with no merit in law and would have been inclined to impose exemplary cost for such misadventure, but for the fact that this is possibly the first such misadventure of the petitioner. We caution the petitioner against preferring such frivolous petitions under the garb of Public Interest Litigation, making it clear that any such endeavour in future would certainly meet with consequences as to cost.

3.

The writ petition is dismissed as meritless. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is also dismissed.