Disqualification Proceedings Against Ex-AIADMK MLAs Who Joined TVK Continue Despite Resignation: TN Assembly Tells Madras High Court
The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Secretary has informed the Madras High Court that acceptance of the resignation of a legislative assembly member does not absolve that member from the consequences of a disqualification with respect to his/her conduct before resignation. The submission was made before a bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan which is hearing...
The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Secretary has informed the Madras High Court that acceptance of the resignation of a legislative assembly member does not absolve that member from the consequences of a disqualification with respect to his/her conduct before resignation.
The submission was made before a bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan which is hearing a plea filed by Chief Whip of the AIADMK Agri SS Krishnamurthy, challenging the acceptance of the resignations of 4 MLAs who contested the assembly elections as AIADMK members but quit after the polls and joined CM Joseph Vijay's Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party.
The court had previously issued notice to the respondents, including the TN Assembly Speaker, and sought their response.
Filing the counter affidavit in the case, the Assembly Secretary submitted that the petition was wholly misconceived and proceeded upon a fundamentally erroneous legal premise that acceptance of a member's resignation operates to extinguish, defeat, or render infructuous the disqualification proceedings pending against the member under the 10th Schedule of the Constitution.
The Secretary also submitted that the disqualification proceedings with respect to the MLAs were pending consideration before the Speaker, in exercise of his quasi-judicial jurisdiction under the Tenth Schedule.
It was also pointed out that as per the observation of the Supreme Court in Kihoto Hollohan v Zachillu, judicial review of the proceedings can be undertaken only after final determination and not in between. It was submitted that the relief, as claimed for in the present plea, would amount to an interference with the functioning of a constitutional authority.
The Secretary also submitted that the petitioner had no legal right to compel the Assembly Speaker to act in a particular manner, to refuse or reject a resignation, when the same is voluntary and genuine. It was submitted that the Speaker had accepted the resignation only after due enquiry, as necessary and there was no material to cast a doubt upon the genuineness of the voluntariness of the resignation.
It was also submitted that there was no law which mandated the disqualification proceedings to be completed before acceptance of a resignation letter. The Secretary underlined that disqualification and resignation operated in two different fields, and acceptance of resignation in no manner disables or forecloses the adjudication.
It was further submitted that the allegations made in the plea are vague, sweeping and unsupported by admissible documentary evidence. It was submitted that any allegations of mala fide against a high constitutional functionary like the speaker must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved.
Thus, arguing that the petition is devoid of merit, the Secretary sought to dismiss the plea.
Case Title: Agri SS Krishnamurthy v The Speaker and Others
Case No: WP 23081 of 2026