CHENNAI: A public interest litigation (PIL) petition has been filed in the Madras High Court seeking to quash the government gazette notification accepting the resignations of three AIADMK MLAs who quit the party to join the ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), and to initiate disqualification proceedings against them.
Advocate ML Ravi, president of Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi (DMSK), has moved the petition, contending that the Tamil Nadu Speaker's decision to accept the resignations of Maragatham Kumaravel, S Jayakumar and Sathyabama from their posts as MLAs is illegal, arbitrary, 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 C Ve Shanmugam voted in favour of the TVK government during the confidence motion in the Assembly, Ravi said the three MLAs belonging to this group subsequently resigned and joined the TVK, followed by another AIADMK MLA.
The petitioner noted that the three MLAs tendered their resignation letters even while proceedings under the Tenth Schedule seeking their disqualification had already been initiated and were pending. Despite this, their resignations were accepted by the Speaker and notified through a gazette notification issued on May 25, 2026.
“A constitutional question arises as to whether a member against whom disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule are pending can be permitted to avoid constitutional consequences by tendering resignation and thereby rendering the anti-defection mechanism ineffective,” the petitioner said.
He pointed out that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in the Kihoto Hollohan case, had held that the Tenth Schedule was enacted to combat the evil of political defections and preserve the purity and stability of parliamentary democracy.
According to Ravi, accepting resignations while disqualification proceedings are pending frustrates the constitutional purpose underlying the Tenth Schedule and allows elected representatives to circumvent constitutional scrutiny.
He further argued that the Speaker is required to act in a manner that advances constitutional objectives and not in a way that renders constitutional safeguards ineffective.
“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 contended, adding that the impugned action violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Ravi also submitted that the Speaker’s decision renders the pending disqualification proceedings infructuous and effectively nullifies a constitutional process specifically designed to maintain legislative discipline and political accountability.
Stating that voters elected the legislators based on their declared political affiliation, the petitioner argued that allowing them to resign and immediately align with another political formation without facing disqualification proceedings would defeat the democratic mandate and erode public confidence in constitutional institutions.
