The Madras High Court on Wednesday issued notice on a petition filed by AIADMK Chief Whip Agri SS Krishnamurthy challenging the acceptance of the resignations of four MLAs who were elected on AIADMK tickets but subsequently resigned from the Assembly and joined Chief Minister Vijay-led Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) on the same day.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan sought responses from the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Speaker, the Assembly Secretary, the Election Commission of India (ECI), the Chief Electoral Officer and the four former MLAs whose resignations are under challenge. The matter has been posted for further hearing on June 29.
The petition arises out of developments following the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections, the results of which were declared on May 4. TVK emerged as the single largest party with 108 seats, falling short of the majority mark of 118 in the 234-member House. The party subsequently secured support from other legislators and formed the government. A confidence motion was moved on the Assembly floor on May 13, which was passed with the support of 144 members.
According to the AIADMK, the party had issued a whip on May 11 directing all its legislators to vote against the confidence motion. However, during the floor test held on May 13, 25 AIADMK MLAs allegedly voted in favour of the TVK government in violation of the party directive. The party thereafter initiated proceedings against them under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution on May 14, alleging defection and breach of the party whip.
The petitioner submitted that the Speaker had been informed about the alleged cross-voting and concerns regarding possible political inducements and horse-trading. It was stated that disciplinary proceedings against some legislators were later dropped after they apologised and returned to the party fold. However, the remaining four legislators allegedly tendered their resignations to the Speaker on May 25 and, on the very same day, met the leadership of TVK and joined the ruling party.
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate V Giri contended that the Speaker accepted the resignations on the same day they were submitted and caused notifications declaring the seats vacant to be published in the official gazette without conducting a meaningful inquiry as mandated under Article 190 of the Constitution.
The petitioner argued that Article 190 imposed a constitutional obligation on the Speaker to satisfy himself that a resignation was voluntary and genuine before accepting it. According to the AIADMK, the resignations were submitted at approximately 2:30 pm on May 25 and were accepted within a short span of time, followed by publication in the gazette and the legislators’ induction into TVK on the same day.
The party maintained that the sequence of events raised serious questions regarding the voluntariness of the resignations and pointed towards possible political inducement. It was argued that TVK did not possess the requisite legislative strength to comfortably sustain its government and therefore had an incentive to secure support from opposition legislators.
The petitioner contended that such circumstances constituted fertile ground for horse-trading and warranted a deeper inquiry by the Speaker before accepting the resignations.
Giri further submitted that a proper inquiry under Article 190 required the Speaker to hear all relevant stakeholders, including the political party to which the legislators belonged. According to the petitioner, no notice was issued to AIADMK and no opportunity was granted to place objections on record before the resignations were accepted.
It was argued that the entire exercise amounted to a mere formality and constituted only a superficial compliance with the constitutional procedure.
The Bench, however, observed during the hearing that the Speaker’s jurisdiction under Article 190 is limited. The Court indicated that the Speaker is primarily required to ascertain whether a resignation is genuine and voluntary and is not expected to investigate broader political considerations behind the decision of a legislator to resign.
The Court orally remarked that the Speaker’s inquiry powers do not extend to examining political motivations or allegations relating to the larger political consequences of a resignation. At the same time, the Bench observed that replies from the concerned parties would be necessary before the issues raised in the petition could be examined in greater detail.
Advocate General Vijay Narayan, appearing for the State authorities, opposed the plea and argued that settled judicial precedents of the Supreme Court make it clear that political considerations underlying a resignation are irrelevant for the purpose of Article 190. He submitted that the Speaker is only required to determine whether the resignation letter was voluntarily submitted and whether it is genuine.
The Advocate General further contended that no prima facie material had been placed before the Court warranting judicial interference with the Speaker’s decision. According to him, the constitutional and legal framework does not require the Speaker to investigate allegations of political inducement while considering the validity of a resignation.
The post Madras High Court issues notice on AIADMK plea challenging Tamil Nadu Speaker’s acceptance of MLA resignations appeared first on India Legal.