The law does not require a Legislative Assembly Speaker to sit in judgment over the motive behind a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) tendering resignation and such resignations have to be accepted if they are found to be genuine and voluntary, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Secretary told the Madras High Court on Monday (June 29, 2026).
In a counter affidavit filed before Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, through Advocate General Vijay Narayan, Assembly Secretary R. Santhi said, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court too in Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil versus Honourable Speaker of Karnataka (2019) had categorically held the motive would be “irrelevant.”
The counter affidavit was filed in response to two writ petitions filed by AIADMK whip Agri S.S. Krishnamurthy. The petitioner had challenged Speaker J.C.D. Prabhakar’s decision to accept the resignations of S. Jayakumar, P. Sathyabama, Maragatham Kumaravel and Esaki Subaya who had been elected on AIADMK tickets from Madurantakam, Perundurai, Dharapuram and Ambasamudram constituencies respectively.
Ms. Santhi said, the Speaker had accepted the resignations because all four MLAs had submitted their handwritten resignation letters in person. “The first respondent (Speaker) upon receipt of the respective resignation letters and after interacting with the Members… and after such inquiry as he thought fit in the facts and circumstances, satisfied himself that the resignation was voluntary and genuine,” she added.
Further, stating there was absolutely no material or circumstance before the Speaker casting any doubt regarding the voluntariness or genuineness of the resignation letters, the Assembly Secretary said, the Speaker had therefore, accepted them in discharge of his constitutional function.
“It is denied that the acceptance was hasty, mechanical, illusory, mala fide, biased, colourable, or actuated by any extraneous or partisan consideration, as is baldly and irresponsibly alleged (by the writ petitioner). The first respondent occupies a high constitutional office… and a presumption of regularity is attached to his official acts, which the petitioner has not even attempted to displace by any material particulars,” the counter affidavit read.
The officer highlighted that Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution empowers the Speaker to reject a resignation only if it was not genuine or voluntary. “The scheme of the provision is that acceptance is the norm; refusal is the exception,” she said and underlined the Speaker also enjoyed the discretion to determine the nature and extent of inquiry to be conducted before accepting the resignations.
Referring to the use of the words ‘such inquiry as he thinks fit’ in the Article, Ms. Santhi said, the language makes it clear the Speaker need not necessarily conduct an elaborate or adversarial inquiry even in instances where the members tender their handwritten resignations in person.
The Assembly Secretary also argued the writ petitioner had no enforceable legal right to compel the Speaker to reject the resignation letters just because the four MLAs were facing disqualification proceedings for having allegedly violated the AIADMK whip by voting in favour of a vote of confidence moved by Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay on the floor of the House on May 13.
The officer made it clear the acceptance of the resignation letters would not absolve the individuals concerned from the pending disqualification proceedings. Nevertheless, she said, the writ petitioner could not seek a direction to the Speaker to adjudicate the disqualification proceedings in a particular manner of within a time frame to be fixed by the court.
Such a direction “would amount to impermissible pre-decisional interference with the functioning of a constitutional tribunal… It is well settled since the Constitution Bench judgement of the honourable Supreme Court in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) that judicial review of proceedings under the Tenth Schedule is confined to the stage after a final determination is made by the Speaker, and that the courts will not interfere at any anterior or interlocutory stage,” her counter read.
“There is no rule, constitutional or statutory, requiring that a pending disqualification petition be decided before a resignation may be accepted, nor any prescribed sequence inter se. The two jurisdictions operate in different fields, as held by the Supreme Court in Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil’s case. The disqualification petitions are pending and will be adjudicated by the first respondent in accordance with law and within a reasonable time,” it added.
The court was also told the Speaker’s role ends with notifying the vacancies after acceptance of resignation of MLAs and that conduct of by elections to those vacant constituencies was the duty of the Election Commission of India. The Secretary, finally, denied as scandalous and unfounded the writ petitioner’s imputation that the Speaker had exhibited allegiance to the ruling TVK.
After taking the counter affidavit on file, the judges adjourned the hearing of the case to July 13 since advocate S.R. Rajagopal, representing the writ petitioner, sought time to file a rejoinder.
Published – June 29, 2026 06:14 pm IST
