Chennai: The Madras High Court has upheld the Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker’s acceptance of the resignations of six AIADMK legislators who supported the TVK government in a confidence vote and subsequently joined the ruling party.
Dismissing a petition filed by AIADMK whip Agri S. Krishnamurthy and others on Friday, the court ruled that pending disqualification proceedings did not prevent the Speaker from accepting the legislators’ resignations or declaring their seats vacant.
The verdict provides relief to the ruling TVK government, although the bench made clear that the resignations would not bring the disqualification proceedings against the six former legislators to an end.
The first bench, comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, held that the resignations were genuine and voluntary. It also upheld the resulting declaration of vacancies in the Assembly as constitutionally valid.
The judges said the Speaker was not required to conduct an extensive inquiry into the alleged motives behind the resignations once their genuineness and voluntary nature had been established.
The challenge centred on the Speaker’s decision to accept the resignations while proceedings seeking the legislators’ disqualification remained pending. The six had cross-voted in favour of the TVK government during the confidence motion before joining the ruling party.
Rejecting the contention that the pending cases barred acceptance of the resignations, the bench explained that resignation and disqualification were separate constitutional processes.
The Speaker was therefore competent to act on the resignations despite the unresolved disqualification petitions. However, the court emphasised that accepting the resignations did not make the pending proceedings academic or infructuous.
It directed the Speaker to finally adjudicate the disqualification cases, with any determination carrying the consequences prescribed under the Constitution’s Tenth Schedule.
The ruling thus upheld the vacancies created by the resignations while preserving the requirement to decide whether the former legislators attracted disqualification under the anti-defection provisions.
The bench also reaffirmed the High Court’s authority to intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution if the Speaker failed to decide disqualification proceedings within a reasonable period. That observation underscored the continuing obligation to resolve the petitions, even after the legislators had relinquished their Assembly membership.
With the petition dismissed, the Speaker’s acceptance of the six resignations stands upheld. The disqualification proceedings, however, remain to be decided and will retain their constitutional significance independently of the resignations.
(IANS)
