Inaction Of Legislative Council’s Chairman In Considering Resignation Submitted By MLC Is Unjust: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that an inaction of the Chairman of Legislative Council in considering the resignation submitted by the Member of Legislative Council (MLC) is unjust and unreasonable.

The Court held thus in a Writ Petition filed by Jayamangala Venkata Ramana, former Executive Secretary under the Telugu Desam Party (TDP).

A Single Bench of Justice G. Ramakrishna Prasad observed, “… it must be held that the alleged inaction on the part of the Hon’ble Chairman in considering the resignation submitted by the Writ Petitioner is neither just nor reasonable. In the light of the settled law which had been discussed hitherto as regards the permissible method in exercising discretion, it must be held that the time taken by the Hon’ble Chairman in initiating the process of inquiry (vide letter dated 08.09.2025) and the date given for personal interaction, which is in itself beyond the period of one year from the date of tendering resignation has travelled on the time line from exercising discretion within a reasonable time towards the abuse of process.”

The Bench said that the Chairman of Legislative Council is not insulated with any Constitutional immunity or absolute discretion.

Advocates K. Ajay Kumar and N. Ashwani Kumar represented the Petitioners, while Senior Advocate S. Niranjan Reddy, Advocate General Dammalapati Srinivas, Advocates R. Satish Babu, G. Subba Rao, and V. Venkata Saketh Roy represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

The Petitioner served as an Executive Secretary under TDP since the year 2005 and had also been elected as a Member of Kaikalur Zilla Praja Parishad Territorial Constituency. Prior to coming into public service, he was an Aqua Culture farmer and his livelihood was dependent on it. He came into politics since the year 1999. He had contested in the General Elections in the year 2009 and was elected as an MLA (Member of Legislative Assembly) from Kaikalur Assembly Constituency.

He lost his election in 2019 with a slender margin of 4% of votes as against the candidate belonging to Yuvajana Sramkina Raithu Congress Party (YSRCP). Thereafter, he joined in the YSRCP and was elected as Member to the Andhra Pradesh State Legislative Council in the year 2023. Subsequently, he submitted his resignation in November 2024 as he did not want to continue as MLC. He contended against the inaction on the part of the Chairman of Legislative Council in rendering a decision despite the fact that the resignation was submitted by him way-back in 2024.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the above facts, noted, “It is settled law that either the provisions of the Constitution or the statute does not confer absolute discretion on any one, for, absolute discretion is the anathema to Rule of Law and fairplay in action. … It is the settled law that untrammeled discretionary power is incompatible with the Rule of Law.”

The Court further reiterated that not exercising the powers vested which results in deprivation is also an abuse of power.

“Having considered the decisions, which are cited hereinabove, qua the time taken by the Hon’ble Chairman in issuing notice (on 08.09.2025) for personal interaction on 28.11.2025, this Court is of the opinion that the inaction on the part of the Hon’ble Chairman is arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable, inasmuch as the inaction for the said period offends the Wednesbury Principle of Reasonableness, and therefore, hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India”, it remarked.

The Court held that the inaction on the part of the Chairman is contrary to the spirit of the 33rd Constitutional Amendment.

“As indicated in catena of decisions that the Law Makers are not above the law and that the discretion that is conferred on a constitutional functionary is for the furtherance of the Constitutional Principles and any action/inaction which goes contrary to the Constitutional spirit and Principles would become questionable. The position of Hon’ble Chairman/Speaker is placed at an exalted position in our constitutional framework, inasmuch as the Constitution of India has reposed unbridled trust and confidence in the neutrality of the Hon’ble Speaker/Chairman”, it added.

The Court emphasised that it would be the duty and the responsibility on the part of the Constitutional functionaries to constantly ensure that the Constitutional spirit is always upheld and the discretion is not a one way traffic but a two-way obligation where the constitutional functionary who exercises this discretionary power shall endeavour to prevent sufferance on the part of the citizen.

“The time limit that is contemplated for completing the inquiry, if any, as contemplated under Sub-rule (2), in the backdrop of the opinion expressed by the law makers in the Parliamentary debates during the 33rd Constitutional Amendment can be about a fortnight that may be stretched upto a month within which time the Hon’ble Chairman is constitutionally obligated to render his decision one way or the other. At the cost of repetition, it is being clarified once again that this Court has not decided whether resignation is voluntary and genuine or otherwise, for, it is the domain that is reserved to the Hon’ble Speaker/Chairman and that this Court is only examining the aspect of alleged inaction/alleged delay in rendering a decision one way or the other”, it also explained.

Furthermore, the Court held that the time line taken by the Chairman in initiating the process of inquiry and calling for personal interaction after more than 2 ½ months is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and as a necessary corollary has also offended the Wednesbury Principle of Reasonableness.

“The provisions of the Constitution as well as the Rules do not contemplate that the Hon’ble Chairman is obligated to undertake a pathological diagnosis for ascertaining casual factors that had led the Member to voluntarily tender his resignation. Caution is indicated by the law makers during the 33rd Constitutional Amendment debates that the Speakers/Chairmen are expected to exhibit the exemplary characters of fairplay, neutrality and impartiality besides being apolitical”, it said.

Conclusion

The Court observed that the inaction for the prolonged period on the part of the Chairman of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council is illegal and arbitrary and therefore is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

“The inquiry that is contemplated is required to be completed and to render the decision on the resignation of a Member within a reasonable time, preferably within a fortnight that may be stretched to a month at the most as contemplated in the Parliamentary Debates during the 33rd Constitutional Amendment. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the Hon’ble Chairman to complete the inquiry process and render a decision within four weeks from today, in accordance with law and communicate the same to the Writ Petitioner forthwith by taking into consideration the above discussion”, it ordered and concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition.

Cause Title- Jayamangala Venkata Ramana v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 21941 OF 2025)

Click here to read/download the Judgment