Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Speaker J.C.D. Prabhakar ought to have conducted a “meaningful inquiry” before accepting the resignations of four AIADMK MLAs, who subsequently joined the TVK, AIADMK whip Agri S.S. Krishnamurthy contended before the Madras High Court on Wednesday (June 17, 2026).

Filing a couple of writ petitions challenging the gazette notifications issued on May 25 and May 26 notifying the acceptance of the resignations of the four MLAs, the AIADMK whip claimed that the Speaker had accepted them “with remarkable haste and without any meaninful inquiry or application of mind.”

First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan ordered notice, returnable by June 29, to the Assembly Secretary after hearing preliminary arguments advanced by senior counsel V. Giri for the petitioner and Advocate General Vijay Narayan for the Assembly Secretary.

In his affidavit, the writ petitioner said, the constitutional mandate governing such resignations was embodied under Article 190(3)(b). He pointed out that a proviso to the Article clearly states that the Speaker must not accept a resignation if he was satisfied, pursuant to an inquiry, that it was not voluntary or genuine.

“This provision enshrines a substantive constitutional safeguard, requiring the Speaker to arrive at an independent and objective satisfaction regarding the voluntariness and genuineness of the resignation. The phrase ‘if the Speaker is satisfied’ is not just a hollow formality or a meaningless ritual but imposes a solemn constitutional duty demanding due inquiry, conscious application of mind and adherence to principles of fairness,” the petitioner said.

He went on to state: “In the present case, the absence of any discernible inquiry renders such satisfaction illusory and vitiates the entire decision making process... The sequence of events unmistakably reveals that the resignations were neither voluntary nor bona fide. The Members (the four former MLAs), immediately upon tendering their resignations, were inducted into the ruling political party, thereby establishing a premeditated design to evade disqualification.”

In his submissions, Mr. Giri brought to the notice of the court that the four MLAs were part of a larger group of 25 MLAs who had defied the AIADMK whip and voted in favour of the vote of confidence moved by Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay on the floor of the Legislative Assembly on May 13, 2026.

Therefore, the AIADMK general secretary Edappadi K. Palaniswami had submitted a petition before the Speaker on the same day urging him to disqualify the 25 MLAs under paragraphs 2(1)(a)/(b) and 6 of Schedule X to the Constitution for having voluntarily given up the party membership by voting against the whip.

On May 14, 2025, Mr. Palaniswami had submitted a representation to the Governor complaining about the conduct of the 25 MLAs and accusing them of having derived pecuniary advantage.

When matters stood thus, three of those MLAs – Maragatham Kumaravel, S. Jayakumar, and P. Sathyabama elected from Madurantakam, Perundurai and Dharapuram constituencies respectively – submitted their resignations to the Speaker on May 25, 2026, and one more MLA E. Subaya alias Esakki Subaya representing Ambasamudram constituency resigned on May 26, 2026.

“The first three MLAs submitted their resignations to the Speaker at around 2.30 p.m. on May 25, 2026. Then, they were not alone but accompanied by a batallion of people. Immediately thereafter, they went to the chambers of Minister for Public Works and Sports Development Aadhav Arjuna, who is also the general secretary of the TVK, in the Secretariat and they were formally inducted in that party. Subsquently, the Speaker announced to the press at 3.55 p.m. that the resignations have been accepted and those three individuals met the Chief Minister too at 4.20 p.m. All this was telecast live on television channels,” the senior counsel said.

Submitting photographs of the events before the court, Mr. Giri said, “The fact that the resignations were given at 2.30 p.m. and accepted at 3.55 p.m. shows that there is a sham of compliance of the procedures set out in the Constitution. These resignations have come on the promise of several things and so the Speaker must have conducted an inquiry before accepting them.... The Speaker has to demonstrate before this court that he did conduct an inquiry. This was a fertile ground for horse trading because they [TVK] did not have the requisite numbers to prove majority on the floor of the Assembly. If this court comes to the conclusion that the acceptance of the resignations was wrong, the gazette notifications will have to be set aside.”