Author: Abhineet shubhangam
College: GGSIPU
Abstract
On 7th September , 2026 , the election commission of india exercised its constitutional mandate under article 324 and issued a notification calling for by – elections to six seats that had fallen vacant in different parts of the country. Of these , five belong to state legislative assemblies – Madurantakam and Dharapuram in Tamil nadu , Thattachanchavady in Puducherry , Rejinagarand Nandigram in west Bengal – while the sixth is the Nagaon parliamentary constitutency in assam ,representing the lok sabha. The polling for all six constituencies has been fixed for 6th October 2026 ,with the counting of votes to follow on 9th October ,2026 , and the entire electoral exercise slated for completion by 11th October , 2026. This announcement , though administrative in appearance , is in fact the product of a tightly regulated framework comprising the constitution of india , the representation of the people act , 1951 and a body of judicial precedent that has over decades , defined th contours of the commission’ s power and the limits within which it must act . This article examines the statutory basis for such bypolls , the timelines mandated by law , the reasons that necessitate a seat being declared vacant , and the manner in which the courts in india have interpreted the commission’ s authority to conduct , defer or expedite such elections . It also situates the present announcement within the larger context of india ‘s federal electoral architecture , where assembly seatsacross different states and one parliamentary seat are clubbed together for administrative convenience without disturbing their distinct constitutional character.
To the point
A vacancy in an elected house – whether it is a state legislative assembly or the house of the people – does not remain unfilled indefinitely. The law requires that such a vacancy be filled through a by- election within a prescribed period , subject to certain statutory exceptions . In the present instance , the six seats fellvacant on account of resignations and, in one case , a change of political allegiance following victory in a separate election . Maragatham Kumaravel and P. Sathyabama , the sitting members from Madurantakamand Dharapuram respectively , resigned from their seats , thereby triggering the constitutional requirement to hold a fresh election . Similarly , the Nagaon lok sabhaseat fell vacant after Pradyut Bordoloi, who had won the seat in 2024 , later switched his political affiliation and successfully contested and won a separate assembly seat , an act that automatically vacated his position as a member of parliament under the principle that no individual may simultaneously hold membership of two houses or two seats without resigning from one . The commission , upon being satisfied that these vacancies existed that no legal impediment such as pending litigation or a shortened residual term stood in the way ,proceeded to notify the election schedule. The schedule follows the customary sequence : issuance of the gazette notification , a window for filing nominations ,scrutiny of those nominations , an opportunity for withdrawal , followed by polling and counting. The Model code of conduct came into force immediately upon the announcement in the concerned constituencies , restricting the ruling party and government machinery from announcing new schemes or using official resources for electioneering until the process concludes .
Legal jargon
The power to conduct by-elections find its root in article 324 of the constitution , which vests the “superintedence , direction and control of elections’’ in the election commission. This is not a residuary or borrowed power but one that flows directly from the constitutional text itself , and it has been repeatedly held that this authority is plenary in nature , filing gaps where the legislature has not made specific provision .Section 147 of the representation of people act , 1951 , requires the commission to fill a casual vacancy in a state legislative in a state legislative council, while sections 149 and 150 deal with vacancies arising in the legislative assembly and the manner of notifying such elections. For the lok sabha and the rajya sabha , an analogous obligation is cast by section 147 read with the general scheme of the act. Crucially , section 151A of the representation of the people act , 1951 mandates that a casual vacancy in either house of parliament or in a state legislature be filled through a by-election within six months from the date of its occurrence , subject to two statutory exceptions: first, where the remainder of the term of the member whose vacancy is to be filled is less than one year , and second, where the election commission , in consultation with the central government , certifies that it is difficult to hold the election within the said period for reasons to be recorded. This provision was inserted by way of an amendment in 1996 precisely to prevent the earlier practice of leaving constituencies unrepresented for prolonged and often politically convenient periods .
The term “ casual vacancy” itself is a term of art, distinguishing a vacancy occurring mid term from a vacancy that arises upon the natural dissolution or expiry of the house. A resignation tendered under article 190(3) for an assembly member , or under article 101(3) for a member of parliament ,and accepted by the speaker or chairman as the case may be, constitutes precisely such as a casual vacancy . Equally ,disqualification under the tenth schedule of the constitution , commonly referred to as the anti- defection law , or disqualification arising from having been elected to two seats and failing to vacate one within the statutory period under section 70 of the representation of people act, 1951 gives rise to the same legal consequence . The doctrine of one person one seat embedded in these provisions is what necessitated the Nagaon vacancy once the sitting member secured a separate assembly mandate and did not resign the newly one seat within the fourteen- day window prescribed by the law , thereby automatically vacating the earlier seat by operation of law rather than by voluntary resignation . The model code of conduct , though it does not carry the force of a statute and is instead a set of guidelines evolved through the consensus of political parties and enforced through the commission’ s plenary powers under article 324, nonetheless attains a quasi-legal character once notified,since violations of it are dealt with through the commission’s own enforcement mechanisms and , in appropriate cases, though references to the criminal law under provisions of the bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023, particularly those relating to bribery , under influence , and the promotion of enmity during elections , mirroring the erstwhile provisions of the Indian penal code, 1860.
Case laws
The judiciary’s engagement with the commission’
s power to schedule and conduct by-elections is extensive , and certain pronouncements from the bedrock of the present legal position. In Mohinder singh gill vs chief election commissioner (1978) , the supreme court held that the commission ‘ s residuary power under article 324 is wide enough to cover situations not expressly provided for by the representation of people act , though this power cannot be exercised in a manner that is arbitrary or that overrides an express statutory provision . The court’s reasoning in that case continues to inform how the commission, s scheduling decisions , including deferment or clubbing of elections , are tested when challenged before constitutional courts. In A.C. jose vs Sivan Pillai( 1984) , the supreme court clarified that where parliament or state legislature has made a specific law occupying a field , the commission ‘s plenary power gives way to their legislation , though in matters of pure administration of the poll process , the commission retains considerable latitude. The decision in Union of india vs association for Democratic reforms(2002) is significant for a related but distinct reason : it affirmed that voters possess a fundamental right to be informed about candidates contesting an election , a principle that indirectly governs how the commission structures the nomination and scrutiny process that follows any bypoll announcement , including the one presently under discussion.
On the specific question of delay in holding by- elections , the supreme court in special reference no 1 of 2002 , in re, arising out of the Gujarat assembly dissolution controversy , held that the six month timeline prescribed under section 15(3) of the representation of people act , 1951 for general elections following dissolution , and by extension the analogous timeline under section 151A for casual vacancies , is not merely directory but carries constitutional weight , since prolonged non- representation of a constituency offends the essence of representative democracy embodied in part 15 of the constitution. Further , in Election Commission of india vs Ashok kumar (2000) , the court held that the power of superintendence under article 324 does not extend to the commission sitting in appeal over its own decisions once an election process has commenced , and any grievance regarding the conduct of a particular bypoll, including matters of constituency -specific irregularities , must ordinarily be agitated through an election petition under part 6 of the representation of the people act, 1951, rather than through a writ petition , save in the narrowest of circumstances. This precedent is particularly relevant to the constituencies now going to the polls , since it forecloses the possibility of premature judicial interference in the schedule announced by the commission, absent a clear case of mala fide or jurisdictional error. The decision in Kanhaiya Lal Omar v R.K. Trivedi (1985) additionally upheld the legal validity of the model code of conduct as a permissible exercise of the commission’s article 324 powers ,notwithstanding its non statutory origin , a principle directly applicable to the code’s immediate enforcement in Madurantakam , Dharapuram , Thattanchavady ,Rejinagar , Nandigram , and Nagaon from the moment the present schedule was announced .
Conclusion
The announcement of bypolls to five assembly constituencies and one lok sabha seat , though it may read as a routine administrative notification , is in truth the operation of a carefully constructed constitutional and statutory scheme designed to ensure that no constituency remains without representation for longer than the law permits . The vacancies at madurantakam ,Dharapuram and Thattanchavady arose from voluntary resignations, those at Rejinagar and Nandigram from the vacating of seats by the sitting chief minister of west Bengal , and the Nagaon vacancy from the operation of “ one seat” rule following a change of politicalfortunes. Each of these situations is governed by distinct provisions of constitutional and statutory law ,yet all converge upon the same procedural pathway mandated by section 151A of the representation of people act, 1951 , and supervised by the election commission under its article 324 authority. The judicialpronouncements discussed above collectively affirm that while the commission enjoys considerable autonomy in scheduling and conducting these elections , that autonomy in scheduling and conducting these elections, that autonomy is neither unchecked nor immune from the constitutional value of timely representation. As the electorate in these six constituencies prepares to exercise its franchise on 6thOctober, 2026 , the exercise stands as a working illustration of how india’s electoral machinery, despite its scale and complexity, continues to function within a disciplined legal framework rather than through unstructured administrative discretion.
Frequently asked questions
1 What is a casual vacancy , and how is it different from a vacancy caused by the dissolution of a house ?
– A casual vacancy arises mid-term , typically through resignation , death , or disqualification of a sitting member, whereas a vacancy caused by dissolution affects the entire house simultaneously upon completion of its term or premature dissolution ,and is filled through a general election rather than a by-election.
2 Within what time period must a by -election be held after a seat becomes vacant?
– Section 151A of the representation of the people act, 1951 requires that the vacancy be filled within six months , barring two exceptions : where less than a year remains in the term of the house , or where the commission , after consulting the central government , certifies that holding the poll within that period is not feasible.
3 Why did the Nagaon lok sabha seat fall vacant despite no resignation being tendered from that seat itself?
The seat fell vacant by operation of law because the sitting member of parliament contested and won a separate assembly seat and did not resign the newly acquired seat within the statutory period, triggering automatic vacation of the earlier seat under the“one person, one seat” principle.
4 Does the model code of conduct have statutory backing?
No, it does not originate from a specific statute but has been judicially recognised , notably in KanhiyaLal Omar vs R.K. Trivedi , as falling within the commission’s plenary powers under article 324 ,and it is enforced through the commission’s own administrative mechanisms rather than direct penal provisions , save where conduct also independently violates provisions of criminal law.
5 Can the schedule of a bypoll be challenged in court once it has been announced?
– Judicial interference at this stage is extremely limited. Following the principle laid down in election commission of india vs Ashok kumar ,grievances regarding the conduct of an election ,once the process has begun , are generally to be raised through an election petition after the results are declared , rather than through a writ petition seeking to halt or alter the process midway.
