Motive Behind MLAs' Resignations Irrelevant, Tamil Nadu Assembly Secretary Tells Madras HC
The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Secretary on Monday told the Madras High Court that the law does not require the Speaker to scrutinise the motive behind a Member's resignation, as long as it is voluntary and genuine.
In a counter affidavit filed before Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, Assembly Secretary R. Santhi stated that a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil versus Honourable Speaker of Karnataka (2019) had held that the motive behind a resignation is “irrelevant.”
The affidavit was filed in response to two writ petitions by AIADMK whip Agri S.S. Krishnamurthy, who challenged Speaker J.C.D. Prabhakar’s decision to accept the resignations of four MLAs—S. Jayakumar, P. Sathyabama, Maragatham Kumaravel, and Esaki Subaya—who were elected on AIADMK tickets from Madurantakam, Perundurai, Dharapuram, and Ambasamudram constituencies respectively.
Ms. Santhi said the Speaker accepted the resignations after the MLAs submitted handwritten letters in person. “The first respondent (Speaker) upon receipt of the respective resignation letters and after interacting with the Members... and after such inquiry as he thought fit in the facts and circumstances, satisfied himself that the resignation was voluntary and genuine,” she added.
She further argued that there was no material before the Speaker to doubt the voluntariness or genuineness of the resignations. The acceptance was therefore in discharge of his constitutional function. “It is denied that the acceptance was hasty, mechanical, illusory, mala fide, biased, colourable, or actuated by any extraneous or partisan consideration, as is baldly and irresponsibly alleged (by the writ petitioner). The first respondent occupies a high constitutional office... and a presumption of regularity is attached to his official acts,” the affidavit read.
The Secretary highlighted Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution, which empowers the Speaker to reject a resignation only if it is not genuine or voluntary. “The scheme of the provision is that acceptance is the norm; refusal is the exception,” she said, adding that the Speaker has discretion to determine the nature and extent of inquiry.
Referring to the words ‘such inquiry as he thinks fit’ in the Article, Ms. Santhi said the language makes it clear that the Speaker need not conduct an elaborate or adversarial inquiry, especially when members tender their resignations in person.
The Assembly Secretary also argued that the writ petitioner has no enforceable legal right to compel the Speaker to reject the resignations simply because the four MLAs were facing disqualification proceedings for allegedly violating the AIADMK whip by voting in favour of a confidence motion moved by Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay on May 13.
She clarified that acceptance of resignations does not absolve the MLAs from pending disqualification proceedings. However, she said the court cannot direct the Speaker to adjudicate disqualification proceedings in a particular manner or within a fixed timeframe, as that “would amount to impermissible pre-decisional interference with the functioning of a constitutional tribunal.” She cited the Supreme Court's 1992 Constitution Bench judgment in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu to support this view.
