Legislative Council Chairman Can't Delay Decision On MLC's Resignation Indefinitely: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Court was dealing with a writ petition filed by Jaymangala Venkata Ramana— an elected Member of the Andhra Pradesh State Legislative Council, who assumed office from 23.03.2023, and tendered his resignation on 23.11.2024. However, the Chairman of the Council did not act on the resignation and such inaction compelled the petitioner to file a writ petition.

The Court referred to Article 190(3) of the Constitution— which governs resignations tendered to the Chairman, the Proviso of which was added by the Constitution (Thirty-third) Amendment Act, 1974, to authorise the Chairman to conduct inquiry into the voluntariness of the resignation, and reject the same if the Chairman is satisfied that such resignation is not voluntary or genuine. Reference was also made to sub-Rule (2) of Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council (“Council Rules”) which stipulates that when a Member tenders his resignation personally and informs the Chairman during personal interaction that the resignation is voluntary and genuine and if the Chairman has no information or knowledge to the contrary, the Chairman may accept the resignation immediately.

Referring to the Parliamentary Debates of the 33rd Amendment and noting that an inquiry by the Chairman was envisaged to be undertaken within a fortnight, or maximum one month, Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad held,

“… the time line taken by the Hon'ble Chairman in initiating the process of inquiry (vide letter dated 08.09.2025) and calling for personal interaction after more than 2 ½ months is held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India 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.”

“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 would therefore be the duty and the responsibility on the part of the constitutional functionaries to constantly ensure that the constitutional spirit is always upheld. In other words, it must be stated that 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 Court added.

Facts:

The petitioner submitted that as per Article 190(3) and Rule 190(2), a Member who intends to resign is not required to state the reasons behind such resignation and the Chairman is only required to analyse if the resignation was tendered voluntarily or not. Petitioner also submitted that as long as the Member informs the Chairman that his/her resignation is tendered upon his/her own volition, the Chairman is not expected to probe any further, but to accept the resignation and publish in the Official Gazette.

In contrast, the Chairman of the Council (Respondent 3) argued that statutory duty is cast upon the Chairman to verify whether the resignation submitted by the Member is by coercion, inducement or improper pressure, and until an informed decision is arrived at, the resignation remains inchoate. Respondent 3 reasoned that post declaration of election results in 2024, several MLCs had resorted to resignations and upon preliminary inquiry, Respondent 3 had come across allegations of illegal gratification offered to MLCs who had resigned, including the petitioner. In this backdrop, it was argued that such allegations may have a bearing upon voluntariness and genuineness of the resignations, thereby making it indispensable for the Chairman to conduct a satisfactory inquiry. It was argued that for the purpose of conducting an inquiry, the Chairman has leverage to decide the timeframe within which he/she wants to call upon the Member for personal interaction, and further that 'cooling-off period' is permitted as part of the plenary powers of the Chairman. Thus, the Chairman was argued to have untrammelled power to decide the period within which he/she would initiate an inquiry on the genuineness and voluntariness of a Member's resignation.

Thus, the Court had to primarily determine whether the inaction on part of the Chairman in considering the resignation of the petitioner was reasonable.

Court's Findings:

With respect to the argument that the Chairman possesses absolute discretionary power in initiating the process of inquiry and rendering a decision, the Court referred to the Parliamentary Debates of the 33rd Constitutional Amendment, where it was categorically discussed that the inquiry may be initiated within a fortnight or may be stretched up to a month, and thereafter the Chairman is bound to render a decision.

In this light, the Court held,

“…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. This apart, having considered the Parliamentary Debates during the 33rd Constitutional Amendment, it must be held that the inaction on the part of the Hon'ble Chairman is contrary to the spirit of the 33rd Constitutional Amendment.”

The Single Judge further held,

“… 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.”

Allowing the writ petition, the Court directed the Chairman to complete the inquiry process within four weeks.

Case Details:

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 21941 OF 2025

Case Title: JAYAMANGALA VENKATA RAMANA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH and Ors

Click Here To Read/Download Order