Speaker did not conduct ‘meaningful inquiry’ before accepting resignations of four MLAs: AIADMK whip tells Madras High Court

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

The View From India Looking at World Affairs from the Indian perspective.

First Day First Show News and reviews from the world of cinema and streaming.

Today's Cache Your download of the top 5 technology stories of the day.

Data Point Decoding the headlines with facts, figures, and numbers

Health Matters Ramya Kannan writes to you on getting to good health, and staying there

The Hindu On Books Books of the week, reviews, excerpts, new titles and features.

Speaker J.C.D. Prabhakar. File | Photo Credit: B. Jothi Ramalingam

Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Speaker J.C.D. Prabhakar ought to have conducted a “meaningful inquiry” before accepting the resignations of four AIADMK MLAs, who subsequently joined the TVK, AIADMK whip Agri S.S. Krishnamurthy contended before the Madras High Court on Wednesday (June 17, 2026).

Filing a couple of writ petitions challenging the gazette notifications issued on May 25 and May 26 notifying the acceptance of the resignations of the four MLAs, the AIADMK whip claimed that the Speaker had accepted them “with remarkable haste and without any meaninful inquiry or application of mind.”

First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan ordered notice, returnable by June 29, to the Assembly Secretary after hearing preliminary arguments advanced by senior counsel V. Giri for the petitioner and Advocate General Vijay Narayan for the Assembly Secretary.

In his affidavit, the writ petitioner said, the constitutional mandate governing such resignations was embodied under Article 190(3)(b). He pointed out that a proviso to the Article clearly states that the Speaker must not accept a resignation if he was satisfied, pursuant to an inquiry, that it was not voluntary or genuine.

“This provision enshrines a substantive constitutional safeguard, requiring the Speaker to arrive at an independent and objective satisfaction regarding the voluntariness and genuineness of the resignation. The phrase ‘if the Speaker is satisfied’ is not just a hollow formality or a meaningless ritual but imposes a solemn constitutional duty demanding due inquiry, conscious application of mind and adherence to principles of fairness,” the petitioner said.

He went on to state: “In the present case, the absence of any discernible inquiry renders such satisfaction illusory and vitiates the entire decision making process... The sequence of events unmistakably reveals that the resignations were n