Speaker can accept MLAs’ resignations despite pending anti-defection cases, but must decide those cases within two months, Madras High Court rules.

Following the 13 May 2026 confidence vote, 25 AIADMK MLAs allegedly voted contrary to the party whip, prompting disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule.

Six later resigned and joined TVK. Four of them—against whom disqualification proceedings remained pending—were the subject of petitions challenging the Speaker’s acceptance of their resignations and seeking time-bound decisions on the pending proceedings.

As to the other two MLAs, the party had withdrawn its disqualification proceedings and no fresh petitions were shown to be pending.

A separate political party also challenged the resignation notifications concerning three of the four MLAs whose disqualification proceedings remained pending.

The petitioners alleged that the resignations were accepted hastily and in circumstances suggesting political inducement; the respondents maintained that the resignations were personal, voluntary and genuine.

Whether the Speaker was required to conduct a detailed inquiry before accepting the resignations, and whether their prompt acceptance was arbitrary or constitutionally improper.

Whether the Speaker was barred from accepting resignations while disqualification proceedings were pending.

Whether acceptance of the resignations rendered the pending disqualification proceedings academic or infructuous.

Whether the High Court could direct the Speaker to decide the pending disqualification proceedings within a fixed time.

Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution requires a member’s written resignation to be accepted by the Speaker; the Speaker must not accept it if, after such inquiry as the Speaker thinks fit, the resignation is found not to be voluntary or genuine.

Rules 21–24 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules govern the form, acceptance and inquiry into resignations; where a member personally hands over the resignation and confirms its voluntary and genuine character, Rule 22 permits acceptance if the Speaker has no contrary information.

Under the Tenth Schedule, the Speaker decides disqualification petitions as a tribunal, and a disqualification decision relates to the date of the alleged defection; resignation does not extinguish the consequences of earlier conduct.

The Court relied, among other authorities, on Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v. Karnataka Legislative Assembly, (2020) 2 SCC 595; Subhash Desai v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 2 SCC 719; and Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya, (2007) 4 SCC 270, concerning the scope of resignation inquiries and the continuing effect of alleged defection.

Under Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu, judicial review of the Speaker’s Tenth Schedule functions is limited, but the High Court may intervene in exceptional circumstances; Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly, (2021) 16 SCC 503, and Padi Kaushik Reddy v. State of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1576, support directions to ensure timely adjudication.

The Court held that the resignation inquiry is confined to whether the resignation is genuine and whether the member intends to relinquish membership of their free will; it does not ordinarily extend to investigating political motives or alleged inducements.

The MLAs personally appeared, tendered signed resignations and affirmed their voluntary intention, while the pleadings did not allege forgery or impersonation.

The Speaker was therefore not required to conduct a roving inquiry, and the surrounding political allegations did not invalidate acceptance.

The Court treated resignation and disqualification as distinct constitutional processes: pending disqualification proceedings did not prevent the Speaker from accepting a resignation, nor did acceptance extinguish proceedings concerning alleged prior defection.

However, the four pending proceedings had remained at the notice stage for more than four months. Applying the authorities permitting judicial intervention to secure a prompt decision, the Court found a time-bound direction warranted.

It did not address disqualification proceedings against the two other MLAs because none were shown to be pending.

It directed the Speaker to prepare and publish, within seven days, a timetable for the pending proceedings and to conclude them within two months of the judgment; no more than two adjournments were to be granted to the defecting MLAs, subject to observance of natural justice and a reasoned final decision.

W.P. Nos. 26155 and 26422 of 2026 were dismissed; W.P. Nos. 23081, 23085 and 22397 of 2026 were partly allowed.

No order as to costs.