The Madras High Court on Tuesday upheld Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker JCD Prabhakar’s decision to accept the resignations of AIADMK legislators who quit the Assembly after the state elections and subsequently joined Chief Minister Joseph Vijay’s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK).

A Division Bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan held that the resignations were genuine and that the Speaker was not expected to conduct a detailed inquiry into the reasons behind the legislators’ decision to resign.

However, the Court clarified that acceptance of the resignations would not bring the pending disqualification proceedings against the legislators to an end. It directed the Speaker to complete those proceedings within two months.

The Court partly allowed a petition filed by AIADMK whip Agri Krishnamurthy challenging the Speaker’s decision to accept the resignations.

The dispute arose from allegations that certain AIADMK legislators had defied the party whip by voting in favour of the TVK government during a confidence motion before subsequently resigning and joining the ruling party.

The petitions concerned six legislators: Maragatham Kumaravel, P Sathyabhama, Isakki Subbaiah, Jayakumar, MR Vijayabhaskar and C Vijayabhaskar.

AIADMK Challenged Acceptance Of Resignations

AIADMK whip Agri Krishnamurthy and National People’s Power Party leader Ravi approached the High Court challenging the orders accepting the legislators’ resignations.

The petitioners questioned the manner in which the resignations had been accepted, contending that the Speaker had not conducted a meaningful inquiry into whether they were voluntary. They also referred to allegations of horse-trading and argued that the circumstances surrounding the resignations warranted closer scrutiny.

According to the petitioners, the legislators tendered their resignations on May 25, 2026, and the Speaker accepted them on the same day. A Gazette notification was subsequently issued, and the legislators joined the TVK.

The AIADMK argued that the speed with which the resignations were accepted, followed by the legislators’ move to the rival party, raised questions about whether the constitutional procedure had been followed in substance.

Relying on Article 190 of the Constitution, the petitioners submitted that the Speaker was required to satisfy himself that the resignations were voluntary and genuine. They contended that the procedure adopted in the present case amounted to little more than formal compliance and that the party should have been given an opportunity to raise its objections.

The petitioners also referred to a complaint submitted to the Governor alleging horse-trading.

Speaker Says Resignations Were Voluntary

Opposing the challenge, the Speaker maintained that he had personally interacted with the legislators before accepting their resignations and was satisfied that they had acted voluntarily.

The Assembly Secretary argued that the petitions were based on an incorrect understanding of the legal consequences of resignation. It was submitted that a legislator’s resignation did not erase the consequences of conduct that could attract disqualification under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.

Accordingly, accepting a resignation could not, by itself, extinguish or render infructuous disqualification proceedings arising from alleged defection.

The Speaker argued that Article 190(3)(b) required the Speaker to examine the genuineness of a resignation rather than investigate the political motives behind it.

He submitted that there was no allegation that the resignation letters had been written by anyone other than the legislators themselves. According to the Speaker’s side, the resignations had been accepted after verifying that they reflected the members’ own free will and were not the result of coercion or undue influence.

The legislators who resigned, argued that a member’s decision to vacate an Assembly seat should not automatically be treated as evidence of wrongdoing.

She submitted that resigning from the legislature before joining another political party was an exercise of democratic choice and dissent, and that the legislators’ actions could not, merely on that account, be presumed to involve corruption or malpractice.

The legislators maintained that they were entitled to leave their seats and join another political party.

Background: AIADMK MLAs Backed TVK Government

The dispute followed the Tamil Nadu Assembly election results declared on May 4, 2026, in which the TVK emerged as the party with the highest number of votes but fell short of the majority required to form the government on its own.

The TVK, led by Vijay, subsequently secured support from other parties and formed the government. A confidence motion was held in the Assembly on May 13, with the government securing 144 votes in its favour.

According to the AIADMK, the party had issued a whip on May 11 directing its legislators to oppose the confidence motion. However, 25 MLAs allegedly voted in favour of the TVK government, contrary to the party’s direction, prompting disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule on May 14.

Some proceedings against legislators were later dropped after they apologised for their conduct, according to the material placed before the Court.

The legislators whose resignations are at issue subsequently tendered their resignations on May 25 and joined the TVK.

By-elections were also held in Maduranthakam and Dharapuram after Maragatham Kumaravel and P Sathyabhama resigned and joined the TVK. Both contested on TVK tickets and retained their seats.

Tags: