'No Constitutional Immunity': AIADMK Party Says Speaker Must Appear Before Madras High Court In Plea Challenging Acceptance Of MLA Resignations
The All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) on Wednesday told the Madras High Court that the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Speaker has no "constitutional immunity" from appearing before the Court.The submissions were made before a bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan in a petition filed by AIADMK party whip Agri SS Krishnamurthi, challenging the...
The All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) on Wednesday told the Madras High Court that the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Speaker has no "constitutional immunity" from appearing before the Court.
The submissions were made before a bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan in a petition filed by AIADMK party whip Agri SS Krishnamurthi, challenging the Speaker's acceptance of the resignations of MLAs who had contested the Assembly elections as AIADMK members and subsequently joined Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK).
Senior Advocate V Giri, appearing for the party whip Agri SS Krishnamurthi, argued that the court could not accept the counter filed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Secretary on behalf of the Speaker, without the latter submitting himself to the court's jurisdiction. It was argued that the plea raised questions which needed to be answered by the Speaker.
"Speaker will have to first submit to the jurisdiction of the court and then say he's authorising the secretary to file an affidavit on his behalf. This is an answer which has to be given by the Speaker, not by the Secretary. Speaker will have to come to court and say. There's no Constitutional immunity for the Speaker not to come to court," Giri argued.
He urged the court not to accept the counter filed by the Assembly Secretary, set the Speaker as ex parte and take the allegations made against him as having been accepted.
"The affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent (Assembly Secretary), without the Speaker entering appearance, cannot be accepted. The Speaker should be treated ex parte, and the allegations against him will have to be taken as accepted," Giri argued.
Giri also argued that as per Article 190(3) of the Constitution, the Speaker had to make an enquiry while accepting a resignation to make sure that the resignation is voluntary and genuine. Giri argued that if a handwritten resignation to the Speaker by the member himself would be considered enough to establish voluntariness, the proviso requiring an enquiry would not have been introduced.
In the present case, Giri argued that there was nothing to show that the Speaker had enquired into the genuineness of the resignation. It was also argued that the members were accepted into the ruling party on the same day, within a few hours of resignation, which makes the acceptance of resignation questionable.
After hearing the matter for some time, the court decided to continue the hearing on August 17, 2026.
Background
It may be noted that the results of the Tamil Nadu General Assembly Elections were declared on May 4th, 2026, with former actor Vijay's TVK party emerging victorious with the highest number of votes. However, since the party had secured 108 votes, which was less than the majority needed to form a government (118), the party sought support from other political parties. Following this, the TVK formed a government, and a confidence motion was held on the assembly floor on 13th May, in which the party secured 144 votes in its favour.
As per the party, soon after the declaration of election results, on May 11 2026, the party had issued a whip to its members asking them to oppose the vote of confidence. However, on the day of the confidence motion on 13th May, 25 MLAs voted in favour of TVK, against the party whip. Since the MLAs voted against the party mandate, proceedings were initiated against them under Schedule 10 of the Constitution of India on May 14, 2026.
The party argued that the facts were brought to the notice of the Speaker, informing him that there was cross-voting and possible horse trading. However, since some of the MLAs apologised for cross-voting, the proceedings against them were dropped.
The party further submitted that on May 25, the respondent MLAs tendered their resignation to the Speaker and on the same day, they met the General Secretary of TVK and gave up their memberships. It was submitted that the resignation was accepted by the Speaker on the same day and a publication was made in the Gazette, and the MLAs joined the TVK party.
Case Title: Agri SS Krishnamurthy v The Speaker and Others
Case No: WP 23081 of 2026