Madras HC upholds TN assembly speaker’s decision to accept resignations of 6 AIADMK MLAs | Chennai News – USFTB

CHENNAI: In a reprieve to the ruling TVK govt in Tamil Nadu, the Madras High Court on Friday dismissed a petition filed by AIADMK whip Agri S Krishnamurthy and others challenging the Assembly speaker’s decision to accept the resignations of six AIADMK MLAs.The six MLAs cross-voted in favour of the TVK govt during a confidence motion and later joined the ruling TVK.The first bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan held that the resignation tendered by the defecting MLAs was genuine and voluntary and in terms of provision enshrined under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.“The speaker of Tamil Nadu legislative Assembly was not required to undertake a roving or fishing inquiry to the alleged motives behind them. Apparently, their acceptance and the consequential declaration of vacancies are constitutionally valid,” the court said.The pendency of disqualification proceedings did not constitutionally bar the speaker from accepting the resignations, as resignation and disqualification are two distinct constitutional processes. The speaker was therefore competent to accept the resignation notwithstanding the pending disqualification proceedings, the judges added.“The acceptance of resignations does not render the pending disqualification proceedings academic or infructuous. The speaker shall still finally adjudicate and decide the disqualification proceedings, and such determination shall carry the consequences prescribed under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution,” the bench said.The court asserted that the HC possesses the power under Article 226 of the Constitution to intervene where the speaker fails to decide disqualification proceedings within a reasonable period.“In the peculiar circumstances, a time-bound mandamus is being issued directing the speaker to conclude the disqualification proceedings finally within two months,” the court said.The primary contention of the petitioners was that the speaker should not have accepted the resignations of the MLAs before deciding the disqualification proceedings for crossvoting in favour of the TVK govt violating party whip.According to the petitioners, conducting an inquiry to ascertain whether the resignations were made voluntarily or not was not merely a procedural formality but a constitutional obligation, and that no meaningful inquiry had actually been conducted.Opposing the pleas, the speaker contended that acceptance of the resignations would not automatically render the pending disqualification proceedings ineffective. If an MLA wishes to resign, he or she cannot be compelled to continue in office. Refusal to accept such resignations would amount to a failure on the part of the speaker to discharge a constitutional duty, he said.The speaker also argued that he is constitutionally duty bound to accept the resignation tendered by an MLA if it is done voluntarily. No one can compel a legislator to continue in his/her post, he said.

The MLAs contended that defection proceedings would arise only if an MLA continued to enjoy the privileges of office while extending support to another political party. Resigning from the office of MLA and subsequently joining another political party constitute democratic political activity, they said.