The Madras High Court on Monday (October 13, 2026) upheld the decision of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Speaker J.C.D. Prabhakar to accept the resignations submitted by six AIADMK MLAs, who later joined the ruling TVK.
Pronouncing the orders, the first Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan said, the resignations tendered by the six MLAs between May 26, 2026, and June 29, 2026, were genuine and voluntary and complied with the provisions under Schedule X of the Constitution.
The judges also said, the Speaker was not required to conduct a roving or a detailed inquiry to find out the motives behind the resignations and recorded his submission that he did, in fact, conduct a limited inquiry to find out whether the resignations were genuine and voluntary.
However, pointing out that acceptance of resignations and the disqualification proceedings that were pending against four out of the six MLAs were distinct constitutional processes, the judges said, the Speaker was competent to accept the resignations notwithstanding the pending disqualification proceedings.
The judges said, the acceptance of the resignations would not render the disqualification proceedings, instituted for reportedly violating the whip issued by the AIADMK to vote against a motion of confidence moved by Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay in May 2026, academic or infructuous.
“The Speaker can still finally adjudicate and decide the disqualification proceedings, and such determination shall carry the consequences as described under Schedule X of the Constitution,” the Bench said. It added that the Constitution permits the High Court, under Article 226 (writ jurisdiction), to intervene when the Speaker fails to decide disqualification proceedings within a reasonable period.
Issuing a time-bound writ of mandamus, the judges directed the Speaker to conclude the disqualification proceedings within two months. The orders were passed while partly allowing a batch of writ petitions filed by AIADMK whip Agri S.S. Krishnamurthy and the Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi against the Speaker’s decision to accept the resignations.
What is the case about?
The petitioners had challenged gazette notifications issued regarding acceptance of the resignations of Esakki Subaya, S. Jayakumar, Maragatham Kumaravel, P. Sathyabama, C. Vijayabaskar, and M.R. Vijayabhaskar, who had been elected from the Ambasamudram, Perundurai, Maduranthagam, Dharapuram, Viralimalai, and Karur constituencies, respectively.
Of them, only Mr. Jayakumar, Ms. Sathyabama, Mr. Maragatham Kumaravel, and Mr. Esaki Subaya were facing the disqualification proceedings. Though AIADMK general secretary Edappadi K. Palaniswami had initially sought the initiation of disqualification proceedings against as many as 25 MLAs belonging to his party, he had subsequently condoned the act of 21 out of the 25 MLAs.
Thereafter, Mr. Krishnamurthy had filed the present writ petitions challenging the acceptance of the resignations of the six MLAs primarily on the ground that the Speaker had not conducted a “meaningful inquiry” before taking a decision on the matter and that he had accepted the resignations “with remarkable haste and without any application of mind.”
In his affidavit, Mr. Krishnamurthy said that the constitutional mandate governing such resignations was embodied in Article 190(3)(b). He pointed out that a proviso to the Article clearly states that the Speaker must not accept a resignation if he is satisfied, pursuant to an inquiry, that it is not voluntary or genuine.
“This provision enshrines a substantive constitutional safeguard, requiring the Speaker to arrive at an independent and objective satisfaction regarding the voluntariness and genuineness of the resignation. The phrase ‘if the Speaker is satisfied’ is not just a hollow formality or a meaningless ritual but imposes a solemn constitutional duty demanding due inquiry, conscious application of mind and adherence to the principles of fairness,” the petitioner said.
He went on to state: “In the present case, the absence of any discernible inquiry renders such satisfaction illusory and vitiates the entire decision-making process... The sequence of events unmistakably reveals that the resignations were neither voluntary nor bona fide. The Members, immediately upon tendering their resignations, were inducted into the ruling political party, thereby establishing a premeditated design to evade disqualification.”
Speaker’s reply
On the other hand, the Speaker, in his counter affidavit, told the court that he did conduct a “limited inquiry” before accepting the resignations of the six AIADMK MLAs between May 26, 2026, and June 29, 2026. He claimed to have inquired with each of those MLAs individually to ascertain whether they had resigned voluntarily and whether their resignation letters were genuine.
Represented by senior counsel K.K. Venugopal, the Speaker told the court that all six MLAs had tendered their resignations in person and in their own handwriting. He had individually inquired with each of those MLAs to find out whether they were resigning out of their free will and volition, and whether there was no element of undue influence or coercion behind their decisions to resign.
Though some of the MLAs were accompanied by their well-wishers and supporters while submitting their resignations, the conduct of the legislators did not give him any impression that they were being coerced or forced, in any manner, to tender their resignations, the Speaker said.
He also told the court that there were no other materials or circumstances to doubt the genuineness or voluntary nature of their resignations. Therefore, he conducted a “limited inquiry” with the MLAs, and it appeared to him that they were stating the truth and were not under any pressure from any other person.
“In these circumstances, there was no further inquiry necessary in my view... In this entire sequence of events, I was guided by the mandate stipulated under the proviso to Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution and Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly (TNLA) Rules,” the affidavit read.
Mr. Prabhakar said that the inquiry conducted by him was in consonance with the permissible scope of inquiry envisaged under the Constitution and the TNLA Rules and, therefore, the acceptance of the resignation letters was perfectly valid and suffered from no legal or constitutional infirmities as canvassed by the writ petitioner.