The Madras High Court has upheld the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Speaker’s decision to accept the resignations of six MLAs who left the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) and subsequently joined the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK). However, the Court clarified that accepting their resignations would not automatically end the pending disqualification proceedings against them.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan directed the Speaker to decide the pending proceedings within two months.
Background
The petition was filed by AIADMK leader and party whip Agri S.S. Krishnamurthy, challenging the acceptance of the resignations of six legislators who had contested the Assembly elections on AIADMK tickets.
According to the petition, the MLAs had voted in favour of the TVK government during a confidence motion, allegedly contrary to the party whip. Disqualification proceedings were subsequently initiated against them under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, which deals with disqualification on grounds of defection.
The petitioner questioned the Speaker’s decision to accept their resignations and sought to challenge the consequential notifications declaring their seats vacant. He argued that the circumstances required closer scrutiny before the resignations could be accepted.
The dispute raised two separate constitutional questions: whether the Speaker could accept the resignations and whether the pending disqualification proceedings would survive that decision.
The Court upheld the acceptance of the resignations, treating resignation and disqualification as distinct constitutional processes. The challenge concerning the resignations therefore did not succeed.
However, the Court made clear that resignation would not, by itself, render the pending disqualification proceedings infructuous. The Speaker was still required to adjudicate those proceedings in accordance with the constitutional framework.
The High Court upheld the Speaker’s decision to accept the six resignations while directing that the pending disqualification proceedings be decided within two months.
The ruling preserved the distinction between the legislators’ resignations and the separate proceedings concerning their alleged defection.
