CHENNAI: A public interest litigation (PIL) petition has been filed in the Madras High Court seeking to quash the government gazette notification accepting the resignation of three AIADMK MLAs, who quit the party to join the ruling TVK, and initiate disqualification proceedings against them.
Advocate M L Ravi, president of Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi (DMSK), has moved the petition stating that the TN speaker’s action to accept the resignation of Maragatham Kumaravel, S Jayakumar and P Sathyabama from the post of MLA is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and contrary to the object and purpose of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.
Stating that the breakaway group of the AIADMK legislature party led by CVe Shanmugam voted in favour of the TVK government’s confidence motion in the Assembly, he said these three MLAs belonging to this group submitted resignation and joined the TVK, followed by one more AIADMK MLA.
The three MLAs tendered resignation letters even when the proceedings under the Tenth Schedule for disqualification had already been initiated and were pending, but the resignations were readily accepted by the Speaker and notified through gazette on May 25, 2026, he noted.
The petitioner said, “A constitutional question arises as to whether a member, against whom disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule was pending, can be permitted to avoid constitutional consequences by tendering resignation and thereby rendering the anti-defection mechanism ineffective.”
He noted the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court (in Kihotto Hollohan case) had held that the Tenth Schedule was enacted to combat the evil of political defections and to preserve the purity and stability of parliamentary democracy.
The acceptance of resignation during the pendency of disqualification proceedings has the effect of ‘frustrating the constitutional purpose’ underlying the Tenth Schedule, and permits elected representatives to “circumvent constitutional scrutiny”, the petitioner alleged.
Petitioner Ravi said the Assembly speaker is required to act in a manner that advances constitutional objectives and not in a way that renders the constitutional safeguards illusory.
“Acceptance of resignations without first deciding pending disqualification petitions permits circumvention of the Tenth schedule and therefore amounts to an arbitrary exercise of constitutional power,” he underscored, adding that the impugned action is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
He further said the impugned action renders pending disqualification proceedings infructuous and thereby nullifies constitutional process expressly created by the Constitution for maintaining legislative discipline and political accountability.
Stating that the electorate voted for candidates on the basis of their declared political affiliation, the petitioner pointed out that permitting them to resign immediately and align with another political formation without facing disqualification proceedings “would defeat democratic mandate” and “erode public confidence” in the constitutional institutions.