Madras High Court Upholds TN Assembly Speaker's Decision Accepting Resignations Of Six AIADMK MLAs

The first bench, comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan, in a petition filed by AIADMK whip Agri SS Krishnamurthy, challenging the Speaker's decision, gave the ruling, upholding the decision of Prabhakar.

The bench directed the Speaker to decide on the petition from AIADMK whip Krishamurthy to Speaker Prabhakar seeking disqualification of MLAs S Jayakumar, Maragatham Kumaravel, P Sathyabama and Esakki Subaya within two months.

S Jayakumar, Maragatham Kumaravel and P Sathyabama, elected from Perundurai, Madurantakam and Dharapuram Assembly constituencies, resigned as Assembly members on May 25, 2026.

Esakki Subaya, elected from the Ambasamudram constituency, resigned the following day. C Vijayabhaskar (Viralimalai) and M R Vijayabhaskar (Karur) resigned as MLAs on June 16 and 29, respectively.

All of them had been elected on AIADMK tickets in the April TN Assembly polls, and they later joined the ruling TVK-led by Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay.

Maragatham Kumaravel and Sathyabama won bypolls -- as TVK candidates -- held on October 6 for the Madurantakam and Dharapuram Assembly segments, respectively.

The bench passed the order on the petition of Krishnamurthy, besides a Public Interest Litigation plea filed by Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi.

The bench said the resignations tendered by the MLAs were genuine and voluntary and in terms of the provisions under the 10th Schedule of the Constitution.

The Speaker was not required to undertake a roving or detailed inquiry into the alleged motives behind them. Accordingly, their acceptance and the consequential declaration of vacancies were constitutionally valid, the bench said.

The bench said the AIADMK's whip was defied by 25 MLAs on May 13, 2026, in pursuance of which, immediately, disqualification proceedings were instituted by the AIADMK before the Speaker.

However, the petitions were withdrawn unconditionally against 14 MLAs, including C Vijay Bhaskar and M R Vijay Bhaskar.

Thereafter, there was no material as to when and how the disqualification proceedings were pending against the said two MLAs.

Therefore, insofar as these two MLAs were concerned, there was no question of answering the current issue in the petitions, as admittedly on record there were no proceedings demonstrated to be pending against them, the court said.

The bench said the pendency of a plea seeking disqualification did not constitutionally bar the Speaker from accepting the resignations, as resignation and disqualification were two distinct constitutional processes.

The Speaker was, therefore, competent to accept the resignations notwithstanding the pending petition seeking disqualification, the bench added.

The bench said the acceptance of resignations does not render the pending disqualification proceedings academic or infructuous.

The Speaker shall still finally adjudicate and decide on the plea seeking disqualification.

The bench said the High Court possesses the power under Article 226 of the Constitution to intervene where the Speaker fails to decide on the disqualification plea within a reasonable period of time.

"In the peculiar circumstances, a time-bound mandamus is being issued directing the Speaker to conclude the disqualification proceedings finally within a period of two months," the bench said in its order.