CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Thursday ordered notice to the Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly seeking response to the petitions filed by AIADMK challenging the Speaker’s action in accepting the resignation of two party MLAs, C Vijaya Baskar and MR Vijayabaskar, and issuing a notification on the vacancy of the seats in Viralimalai and Karur constituencies.
Both the MLAs had defected to Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) soon after resigning their posts.
The petitions were filed by the party’s Whip Agri SS Krishnamurthy alleging the Speaker had acted without conducting the enquiry mandated under Article 190 (3) (b) of the Constitution and for quashing the acceptance of resignation and restraining further steps in pursuant to the vacancy and holding bye-elections.
The first bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan, while issuing notice also to the two MLAs, directed the Registry of the court to tag these petitions along with the other ones already filed against the acceptance of the resignation of four MLAs-Maragatham Kumaravel, S Jayakumar, P Sathyabama and Esakki Subaya.
It adjourned the hearing to July 22, 2026.
The petitions stated that it is a classic case where the constitutional safeguards against defection are alleged to have been neutralized through a carefully orchestrated sequence of cross-voting, political inducement and resignation. It therefore raises issues that strike at the very heart of constitutional morality, democratic governance and the integrity of the electoral process.
Both C Vijaya Baskar and MR Vijayabaskar contested the polls on behalf of AIADMK, won the elections but voted against the party’s whip on the Confidence Motion moved by the TVK government attracting disqualification proceedings; yet, obtained condonation through an apology, thereafter tendered resignation under highly suspicious circumstances, the petitions said.
They pointed out the Speaker had accepted the resignations despite the extraordinary circumstances without conducting the enquiry under Article 190 (3) (b) of the Constitution which does not contemplate automatic acceptance of resignation.
The petitions alleged that the resignations have effectively been used as a mechanism to frustrate statutory and constitutional scrutiny.
They raised a question whether the Speaker is constitutionally bound to consider surrounding circumstances including allegations of horse-trading, inducement, political bargaining and defection before accepting a resignation of an MLA and whether accepting the resignation without enquiry, despite credible allegations of inducement and political poaching, is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 190 (3) (b) of the Constitution.
Further, it said, whether the public statement of a senior politician, Vaiko, disclosing inducement of legislators to resign and seek re-election, constitutes relevant material requiring examination by the Speaker before accepting the resignations.
