Madras High Court Issues Notice To TN Assembly Speaker On AIADMK Plea Challenging Acceptance Of 4 MLAs' Resignations To Join TVK

The Madras High Court on Wednesday issued notice on a plea by Chief Whip of the AIADMK Agri SS Krishnamurthy, challenging the acceptance of resignation of 4 MLAs who contested the assembly elections as AIADMK member but quit after the polls and joined CM Joseph Vijay's Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party on the same day.

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan has issued notice to the Speaker and the Secretary of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, the Election Commission of India, the Chief Electoral Officer and the MLAs who resigned from their constituencies. 

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.

Senior Advocate V Giri, appearing for AIADMK, argued that as per Article 190 of the Constitution, the Speaker was bound to conduct some enquiry to ensure that the resignation was given voluntarily. He argued that in the present case, the resignation was given at around 2:30 pm on May 25, and on the same day it was accepted and a gazette notification was made. Giri also argued that the MLAs were given membership in the TVK party on the same day, which points to possible horse trading.

"There was an intention to give membership in the opposing party, which was manifested. This is what we call as horse trading. Resignation comes with the promise of many other things. They (TVK) didn't have the requisite number of members. This is a fertile ground for horse trading. There is an inducement for other benefits, which will taint the resignation," Giri said.

Giri also argued that if the Speaker had conducted a proper enquiry, he should have issued notice to the AIADMK party, so that the party could oppose the same. He thus submitted that there was a sham of compliance with the procedure contemplated under Article 190 of the Constitution.

"Speaker cannot say that he wouldn't enquire. He is bound to enquire. What is an enquiry without sending any notice to persons who will oppose it. 2:30 the resignation was given and by 3 it was accepted. There's a sham of compliance with proceedings under Art 190," he argued.

To this, the bench remarked that the Speaker only had limited powers for enquiry. The court remarked that the Speaker was only bound to see whether the resignation was genuine and was given by the member voluntarily. 

"Speaker can have only limited enquiry. He cannot go into the question of whether there was political considerations. We can call upon the persons to reply. But the scope and power is limited," the bench orally remarked. 

The Advocate General Vijay Narayan also argued that even as per the judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court, the Speaker was not bound to look into any alleged political consideration behind the resignation.

"There's no prima facie material before the court to show that there is a need for judicial scrutiny. What the SC says is that consideration is totally irrelevant. What the speaker has to see is only if the letter has been given voluntarily and whether the letter is genuine," the AG submitted.

After hearing the parties, the court decided to issue notice and seek the response of the respondents. The court then adjourned the hearing to June 29.

It may also be noted that the bench dismissed a plea yesterday seeking a CBI probe into the MLAs' resignations. The court had held that sudden change in political loyalty by itself would not be a criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act without any evidence. 

Case Title: Agri SS Krishnamurthy v The Speaker and Others

Case No: WP 23081 of 2026