The Madras High Court has clarified that acceptance of a voluntary and genuine resignation neither requires prior disposal of a disqualification petition nor extinguishes it. Emphasising that under Article 190(3)(b), the Speaker must ascertain whether a resignation is voluntary and genuine, and not conduct a fishing inquiry into the reasons behind it, the High Court upheld the resignations based on the MLAs’ personal appearance and affirmation that they acted freely, without coercion or duress.
The Court went on to hold that resignation and disqualification are separate constitutional processes, and the Speaker can accept a valid resignation without first deciding the pending Tenth Schedule proceedings. The Court also clarified that acceptance of resignation does not render a pending disqualification petition academic or infructuous. The Speaker must still decide it, with any disqualification carrying the prescribed constitutional consequences.
The Court noted that the disqualification proceedings had remained pending for more than four months, with only notices issued and no satisfactory explanation. A direction for expeditious adjudication facilitates the Speaker’s constitutional duty rather than usurping his powers. The High Court also said that the Speaker must conclude the pending proceedings within two months, publish a stage-wise timetable within seven days, prevent unnecessary adjournments and observe natural justice.
Briefly, AIADMK’s official whip, Agri S.S. Krishnamurthy, and Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi challenged the Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker’s acceptance of the resignations of AIADMK MLAs who subsequently joined Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK). The dispute arose after 25 AIADMK MLAs voted in favour of the TVK government’s confidence motion on 13 May 2026, contrary to the party whip, prompting disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule. Six of those MLAs later resigned from the Assembly and joined TVK. The petitioners sought to invalidate the acceptance of their resignations and secure time-bound decisions on the pending disqualification petitions.
The Court distinguished between the six MLAs. Disqualification proceedings remained pending against S. Jayakumar, Maragatham Kumaravel, P. Sathyabama and Dr. Esakki Subaya. However, the party had condoned the conduct of Dr. C. Vijaya Bhaskar and M.R. Vijaya Bhaskar, and the proceedings against them had been withdrawn. As no fresh disqualification petitions against these two were shown to be pending, their petitions concerned only the validity of the Speaker’s acceptance of their resignations.
Also read Section 10 CPC Stay Cannot Be Granted Merely on Overlapping Issues: Calcutta High Court
The Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan observed that the Speaker’s inquiry under Article 190(3)(b) and Rules 21–24 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules is limited to determining whether a resignation is voluntary and genuine. It does not extend to a roving inquiry into political motives. The MLAs had personally appeared before the Speaker, submitted signed resignation letters and affirmed that they acted freely, without coercion or duress. Allegations of financial dealings and horse-trading, without allegations of forgery, fabrication or impersonation in the resignation letters, did not establish that the resignations were invalid.
However, the Court expressed concern over the delay in deciding the disqualification petitions. It noted that the proceedings had remained pending for more than four months, with only notices issued and no satisfactory explanation for the delay. The Speaker was expected to act impartially and expeditiously. A judicial direction requiring a prompt decision would facilitate the discharge of his constitutional duty, rather than usurp his adjudicatory powers.
The Court clarified that resignation and disqualification are distinct constitutional processes. Pending disqualification proceedings do not, by themselves, prevent the Speaker from accepting a voluntary and genuine resignation. Equally, acceptance of a resignation does not extinguish proceedings concerning an alleged act of defection committed before resignation or render those proceedings academic or infructuous. The Speaker must still adjudicate them, and any resulting disqualification carries the prescribed constitutional consequences.
