Resignation does not end an anti-defection case: the Madras High Court has found the AIADMK MLAs’ resignations genuine and left the Speaker’s acceptance undisturbed, but has told him to finish the disqualification proceedings within two months.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Chennai: Four MLAs who contested the Assembly election as AIADMK candidates, quit the party and joined the TVK have had their resignations upheld by the Madras High Court, which found the AIADMK MLAs’ resignations genuine and left the Speaker’s decision to accept them in place. The Speaker has, however, been directed to complete the disqualification proceedings against the four within two months [Agri SS Krishnamurthy v. The Speaker and Others].
The writ petition was filed by Agri S.S. Krishnamurthy, the whip of the AIADMK, who challenged the acceptance. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan partly allowed it.
Two questions, two answers
On the first question, the Bench found the resignations genuine and said the Speaker was not expected to conduct a detailed enquiry into them. His decision accepting them was therefore upheld.
On the second, the Court held that the resignations do not bring the anti-defection proceedings to an end and would not bar the disqualification proceedings. Those must be completed by the Speaker within two months.
How the resignations came about
The petition traces the dispute to the Tamil Nadu Assembly results of May 4, 2026. According to the petition, the AIADMK issued a whip on May 11 asking its members to oppose the confidence motion moved by the TVK government, yet 25 AIADMK MLAs voted for the TVK at the confidence vote on May 13. Tenth Schedule proceedings were initiated on May 14.
Four MLAs handed their resignations to the Speaker at about 2.30 pm on May 25, 2026. The petition states that they met the General Secretary of the TVK the same day, that the Speaker accepted the resignations that day, that a gazette notification followed, and that the four joined the TVK.
What each side argued
Senior Counsel V. Giri, for the petitioner, contended that Article 190 required the Speaker to hold an enquiry into whether the resignations were voluntary, and that acceptance, gazetting and induction into another party on the same day pointed to possible horse-trading. He also submitted that the AIADMK should have been heard before acceptance. These are the petitioner’s allegations and have not been established.
The Speaker told the Court that he had questioned each MLA to confirm that the resignations were voluntary and had found no undue influence or coercion. Senior Advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan submitted that under Article 190(3)(b) the Speaker need only be satisfied that a resignation is genuine and voluntary, without inquiring into the motive. Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, for the MLAs who resigned, argued that resigning before joining another party involves no malice and is a form of dissent within a democracy. The Secretary of the Legislative Assembly submitted that accepting a resignation does not absolve a member of disqualification for conduct before resigning.
Why the judgment matters
Two questions that are often run together are pulled apart here: whether a Speaker may accept a resignation, and whether a member who resigns can escape a pending disqualification petition. On the first, the Court accepted that the Speaker need only be satisfied that the resignation is genuine. On the second, it kept the Tenth Schedule proceedings alive.
The two-month timeline also adds to the line of orders asking Speakers to decide defection petitions within a fixed period. The Court has expressed no view on how the disqualification petitions should ultimately be decided, and the parties’ contentions on the merits remain for the Speaker.
Case Title: Agri SS Krishnamurthy v. The Speaker and Others [W.P. No. 23081 of 2026]
Bench: Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, Madras High Court
Date of Order: October 13, 2026
Appearances: Senior Counsel V. Giri for the petitioner; Senior Advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan and Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy for the respondent MLAs; Advocate General Vijay Narayan for the State