Can ECI De-Register Political Parties for Not Contesting Elections? Madras High Court Refuses Interim Relief

The Madras High Court has refused to grant interim relief to several political parties, including Tamizhaga Makkal Munnertra Kazhagam, which challenged their de-registration by the Election Commission of India (ECI) for failing to contest elections continuously for six years.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan dismissed applications seeking a stay of the ECI’s de-registration orders. Court observed that serious constitutional questions arose regarding the scope of the ECI’s power to de-register political parties registered under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, but held that interim restoration of registration could not be granted at this stage.

The ECI had de-registered the petitioning parties on the ground that they had not contested parliamentary or legislative assembly elections in a continuous block of six years, as mandated under its 2014 Guidelines. The guidelines require a registered political party to declare in its constitution that it will contest an election conducted by the ECI within five years of registration, and provide that failure to contest elections continuously for six years would result in removal from the list of registered parties.

Challenging the action, the petitioners argued that while Section 29A of the RP Act provides for registration of political parties, there is no corresponding statutory provision for de-registration. They relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Indian National Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare (2002), which held that the ECI’s power to de-register is confined to limited exceptional circumstances such as fraud or violation of constitutional commitments.

The petitioners contended that the ECI could not invoke Section 21 of the General Clauses Act to justify de-registration, particularly when registration under Section 29A is a quasi-judicial function. They further argued that Article 324 of the Constitution, which vests the ECI with superintendence, direction and control over elections, does not empower it to create substantive conditions for de-registration in the absence of legislation under Article 327.

It was also argued that the Guidelines are executive in nature and cannot impose restrictions affecting fundamental rights unless backed by law. Some petitioners claimed that they had participated in local body elections or that their members had contested elections under alliance symbols, and that such participation should not be ignored.

The ECI, however, defended its action by asserting that Article 324 confers wide constitutional authority, including residuary powers to address situations not expressly covered by statute. It argued that the guidelines have statutory force and were introduced to curb misuse of registration by parties that accept donations and claim tax exemptions without participating in the electoral process.

The ECI relied on Supreme Court decisions, including Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. Chief Election Commissioner and others (1978) and Janata Dal (Samajwadi) v. Election Commission of India (1996), to submit that it can fill legislative gaps and that Section 21 of the General Clauses Act may apply even to quasi-judicial functions. It further contended that participation in local body elections does not satisfy the requirement, as the Guidelines refer specifically to elections conducted by the ECI.

The high court noted that the issue of the ECI’s power to de-register registered political parties raises substantial constitutional questions requiring deeper examination. It also recorded that notices had been issued, replies considered, and orders passed “by order” of the ECI.

Holding that grant of interim stay would effectively restore the parties’ status as registered entities ahead of impending elections, the bench concluded that the balance of convenience did not lie in their favour. The interim applications were accordingly rejected.

Court has now directed that the batch of writ petitions be listed for final hearing in the second week of March 2026.

Case Title: Tamizhaga Makkal Munnertra Kazhagam vs Chief Election Commissioner and Another with batch cases

Order Date: February 18, 2026

Bench: Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan