Speaker tells HC he conducted 'limited inquiry' before accepting AIADMK MLAs' resignations

Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Speaker J.C.D. Prabhakar on Monday (August 17, 2026) told the Madras High Court that he had conducted a “limited inquiry” before accepting the resignations of six AIADMK MLAs between May 26 and June 29, 2026.

Filing an affidavit before the First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, the Speaker said he had individually asked the MLAs whether their resignations were voluntary and genuine.

The affidavit was filed in response to four writ petitions by AIADMK Whip Agri S.S. Krishnamurthy, who challenged the acceptance of the resignations of Esakki Subaya, S. Jayakumar, Maragatham Kumaravel, P. Sathyabama, C. Vijayabaskar and M.R. Vijayabhaskar. These MLAs were elected from Ambasamudram, Perundurai, Maduranthagam, Dharapuram, Viralimalai and Karur constituencies, respectively.

During the previous hearing, senior counsel V. Giri, appearing for the petitioner, had argued that the Speaker had not subjected himself to the court's jurisdiction by authorising Legislative Assembly Secretary R. Santhi to file a counter affidavit on his behalf. The Speaker clarified that there was no disrespectful intent behind this decision.

“Any suggestions to the contrary by the petitioner are mischievous and stoutly denied,” the affidavit said.

Asserting his respect for the judiciary, the Speaker stated: “As a co-constitutional authority, I have the highest regard and respect for the judicial process of this honourable Court and hence it has never been my intent to abstain from participating in the present matter.” He explained that he was under the bona fide impression that it would suffice for the Assembly Secretary, who had the necessary competence to depose on the facts, to file the counter. Therefore, he had not formally entered appearance through a law officer earlier.

Clarifying the circumstances, the Speaker said all six MLAs had tendered their resignations in person and in their own handwriting. He individually inquired with each MLA to ascertain whether they were resigning of their own free will and volition, and whether there was any element of undue influence or coercion. Some MLAs were accompanied by well-wishers and supporters while submitting their resignations, but their conduct gave no impression that they were being forced, he added.

He further said there were no materials or circumstances to doubt the genuineness or voluntary nature of the resignations. Therefore, he conducted only a “limited inquiry” with the MLAs, and it appeared to him that they were stating the truth and were under no pressure from any other person.

“In these circumstances, there was no further inquiry necessary in my view,” the affidavit read. He said he was guided by the proviso to Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution and Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly (TNLA) Rules. He maintained that the inquiry was in consonance with the permissible scope under these provisions, making the acceptance of the resignation letters perfectly valid and free of any legal or constitutional infirmities.

After taking the Speaker's affidavit on file, the Bench adjourned the hearing to September 1, 2026, directing the petitioner to file a reply to the affidavit.