Madras High Court seeks TN Assembly response on AIADMK challenge to Speaker accepting resignation of four MLAs

The Madras High Court on Wednesday sought the response of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Secretary on a plea by All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) challenging the Speaker’s decision to accept the resignation of four MLAs despite pending anti-defection proceedings against them. [Agri Krishnamurthy v. Speaker].A Bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice Arul Murugan heard the plea filed by AIADMK chief whip Agri Krishnamurthy..The plea challenges the acceptance of the resignations as well as the gazette notifications declaring the 4 Assembly seats vacant..Senior Advocate V Giri, appearing for Krishnamurthy, argued that the 4 MLAs had voted in favour of the confidence motion moved by the ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), despite a whip issued by the AIADMK directing its MLAs to oppose the motion. It was submitted that anti-defection proceedings were initiated after the cross-voting.The Court was told that 25 MLAs had initially voted against the party whip, but 21 of them later returned to the party fold and tendered apologies..The petitioner alleged that the four MLAs submitted their resignations to the Speaker around 2:30 PM on May 25. According to the plea, the MLAs were soon inducted into TVK and their resignations were accepted by the Speaker the same day.It argued that the Speaker ought to have conducted a meaningful inquiry before accepting the resignations, particularly since allegations of horse-trading and inducement had already been raised..The plea stated that under Article 190 of the Constitution, an MLA’s resignation does not automatically result in a vacancy. The Speaker must first satisfy himself that the resignation is voluntary and genuine, the Court was told.It was further submitted that the Speaker’s decision had serious constitutional consequences, since the Election Commission could now proceed to hold by-elections to the 4 seats. The petitioner argued that if the acceptance of the resignations is later set aside, there would be no clear vacancy and the gazette notifications declaring the seats vacant would fall..During the hearing, the Bench raised questions on the scope of judicial review over the Speaker’s decision and whether it could examine the reasons or political background behind the resignations.The petitioner clarified that the challenge was not merely to the motive behind the resignations, but to the alleged failure of the Speaker to conduct the constitutionally mandated inquiry before accepting them..The case is now expected to come up for hearing in July. .Advocate General Vijay Narayan appeared for the Speaker.