CHENNAI: In a setback to the embattled AIADMK general secretary Edappadi K Palaniswami, who has been grappling with a revolt in the party, the Madras High Court on Tuesday handed a legal blow by upholding the Tamil Nadu Speaker JCD Prabhakar’s decision to accept the resignation of six of the party’s MLAs, defecting to the ruling TVK led by actor-turned-Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay after cross-voting in the Assembly.
A division bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan pronounced the orders on the petitions filed by AIADMK Whip Agri SS Krishnamurthy and ML Ravi, president of Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi.
Krishnamurthy challenged the Speaker’s decision mainly on the grounds that the resignations were tendered out of horse trading, and the Speaker did not conduct a proper inquiry since disqualification proceedings were pending against the defectors.
The bench said the Speaker need not conduct a ‘roving inquiry’ before accepting the resignations of the legislators, and pendency of disqualification proceedings is not a bar to accepting the resignation.
However, partly allowing the petitions, the bench directed the Speaker to conduct the disqualification proceedings expeditiously and complete them within two months.
The AIADMK Whip filed petitions challenging the acceptance of the resignations of S Jayakumar (Perundurai), Maragatham Kumaravel (Madurantakam), P Sathyabama (Dharapuram), Isakki Subaya (Ambasamudram), C Vijaya Bhaskar (Viralimalai), and M R Vijayabaskar (Karur).
Of the six, Maragatham Kumaravel and Sathyabama were re-elected to the Assembly on TVK ticket in the recent by-elections from the same constituencies.
The petitioner's main contention is that the resignations resulted from horse-trading and inducements, and that the Speaker failed to conduct the due inquiry mandated by the Constitution, since disqualification proceedings have been pending against the MLAs.
He stated the Speaker's decision suffers from ‘procedural impropriety and irrationality’ while accepting and notifying the resignations, as he did not conduct the due inquiry for proper checking of voluntariness and genuineness of the resignation as mandated under Article 190 (3) (b) of the Constitution.
They said holding such an inquiry is ‘not a formality’ but a ‘constitutional requirement’, adding that the disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule were initiated when the resignations were submitted, and the materials were in the Speaker's possession, suggesting horse trading.
However, the counsels for the Speaker and the Assembly Secretary submitted that resignation and disqualification proceedings are two different aspects of the Constitution, and accepting the resignation does not violate constitutional provisions.
An elected member (MLA) cannot be forced to continue in office if he wishes to resign voluntarily because the Constitution gives a person the freedom to choose when to resign, they said.
The inquiry of the Speaker is limited, and he cannot inquire into the motive of resignation when the concerned MLA is saying he is doing it voluntarily, the counsels contended.