3 Mla The present writ petition is therefore filed seeking judicial review of the impugned notifications accepting the resignations of Respondents 3 to 5 and for consequential reliefs. Dated at Chennai on this the 5th day of June 2026.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
W.P.No. of 2026
Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi,
Represented by its President
M.L.Ravi,
S/o.Lakshmipathi,
No.21, Venkatraman Street,
Mint, Chennai-600 001 …Petitioner
Versus
1. The Hon’ble Speaker,
Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly,
Secretariat, Ground Floor,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009
2.The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly,
Secretariat,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009
3.Smt.Maragatham Kumaravel,
Maduranthagam Legislative Assembly Constituency,
Maduranthagam
Chengalpattu District
4. S.Jayakumar,
Perundurai Legislative Assembly Constituency,
Perundurai, Erode District
5. P.Sathyabama,
Dharapuram Legislative Assembly Constituency,
Dharapuram,
Tiruppur District ..Respondents
AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER
I, M.L.Ravi, son of Lakshmipathi, Hindu, aged about 61 years, having office at No.21/11, Venkatraman Street, Mint, Chennai600 001, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:
1. I am the President of Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi, a registered political party bearing Registration No.56/89/201516/PPS-I granted by the Election Commission of India, and as such I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. I submit that this petition raises important constitutional issues concerning the anti-defection law embodied in the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India. When proceedings under the Tenth Schedule against Respondents 3 to 5 were admittedly pending, the acceptance of their resignations is arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the object of the anti-defection mechanism.
3. I respectfully submit that the Petitioner Political party has contested in various General Elections to the Lok Sabha, Legislative Assembly Elections and Bye-Elections held in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra since its inception. Also I submit that I have filed various similar petitions before this Hon’ble Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
4. I submit that the 17th General Legislative Assembly Election to Tamil Nadu, 2026 was held on 23.04.2026 and the results were declared on 04.05.2026 on 04.05.2026. My political party candidates filed nominations in 13 Constituencies and contested in 11 Constituencies. The
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (hereinafter called DMK) which was in power from 2021 till 2026, contested along with its alliance parties, All India Congress Party, Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi, Indian Union Muslim League Communist Party Of India, Communist Party of India (Marxist) and Desiya Murpokku Dravida Katchi, together won 69 Assembly seats. It is further submitted that Murpokku Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam contested in the DMK party symbol for four assembly seats and won two seats. Tamilzhaga Vetri Kazhagam (TVK) headed by its President Mr.C.Joseph Vijay contested in all 234 assembly seats in the said election and won 108 seats. The Opposition AIADMK party in the 16th Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu and its allies Bharatiya Janatha Party, Pattali Makkal Katchi and Amma Makkal Munnetra Khazagam together won 47 Assembly seats.
5. I further state that a minimum of 118 seats was required to command a majority in the 17th Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. Since no political party or alliance secured the said majority, and as TVK emerged as the single largest party, it held discussions with other political parties and thereafter formed the Government.
6. I submit that on 13th May, 2026 the TVK Government moved a Confidence Motion in the Assembly and secured the confidence vote of 144 members in favour.
7. I submit that In the meanwhile, the AIADMK political party split into two factions. One group, led by C.V. Shanmugham, voted in favour of the ruling TVK Party during the confidence motion, while the other group headed by its General Secretary, Edappadi K. Palaniswami, voted against the ruling party.
8. I further submit that the AIADMK faction headed by its General Secretary submitted petitions before the Hon’ble Speaker seeking initiation of proceedings under the Tenth Schedule against the members belonging to the rival faction.
9. I submit that among the AIADMK Faction led by C.V.Shanmugham initially 3 Members of the Legislative Assembly, Respondents 3 to 5, submitted their resignation from the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, joined the ruling TVK Party. Later another member of the Assembly also submitted his resignation.
10. I respectfully submit that elections to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly were conducted on 23.04.2026. Following the constitution of the Legislative Assembly, certain elected members belonging to the opposition camp allegedly acted contrary to the position and directions of their parent political party during proceedings relating to the confidence motion. Consequently, proceedings seeking their disqualification under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India were initiated and were pending consideration before the Hon’ble Speaker.
11. I respectfully submit that Respondents 3 to 5, against whom proceedings under the Tenth Schedule had already been initiated and remained pending, tendered their resignations from membership of the Legislative Assembly. The said resignations came to be accepted by the Hon’ble Speaker and were notified through Gazette Notifications dated 25.05.2026.
12. I respectfully submit that the constitutional question arising in the present case is 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 render the anti-defection mechanism ineffective.
13. I state that the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 1993 Supreme Court 412, in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu recognised that the Tenth Schedule was enacted to combat the evil of political defections and to preserve the purity and stability of parliamentary democracy. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Tenth
Schedule are salutary and intended to strengthen the fabric of
Indian democracy. It is extracted herein
“Majority view of the Supreme Court is “The paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution is valid. Its provisions do not suffer from the vice or subverting democratic rights of elected members of Parliament and the Legislatures of the States. If does not violate their freedom of speech, freedom of vote and conscience. The provisions of Paragraph 2 do not violate any rights or freedom under Arts. 105 and 194 of the Constitution.
The provisions are salutary and are intended to strengthen the fabric of Indian Parliamentary democracy by curbing unprincipled and unethical political defections.
The plea that the provisions of the Tenth Schedule, even with the exclusion of Paragraph 7, violate the basic structure of the Constitution in that they affect the democratic rights of elected embers and, therefore, violative of the principles of Parliamentary democracy is unsound.
The freedom of speech of a Members is not an absolute freedom. That apart, the provisions of the Tenth Schedule, do not purport to make a Member of a House liable in any “Court” for anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament. It cannot be said that Art. 105 (2) is a source of immunity from the consequences of unprincipled floor – crossing. Democracy is a basic feature of the Constitution. Whether any particular brand or system of Government by itself, has the attributes of a basic feature as long as the essential characteristics that entitle a system of government to be called democratic are otherwise satisfied is not necessary to be gone into. Election conducted at regular, prescribed intervals is essential to the democratic system envisaged in the Constitution. So is the need to protect and sustain the purity of the electoral process. That may take within if the quality, efficacy and adequacy of the machinery for resolution of electoral disputes. From that it does not necessarily follow that the rights and immunities under Sub Art (2) of Art. 105 of the Constitution, are elevated into fundamental rights and that the Tenth Schedule would have to be struck down for its inconsistency with Art. 105 (2)”.
14. I respectfully submit that the acceptance of resignations during the pendency of disqualification proceedings has the effect of frustrating the constitutional purpose underlying the Tenth Schedule and permits elected representatives to circumvent constitutional scrutiny. Such an approach undermines democratic accountability and dilutes the mandate entrusted by the electorate.
15. I further submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that in Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v. Karnataka Legislative Assembly Speaker, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that resignation and disqualification proceedings may overlap and that constitutional authorities must ensure that the anti-defection regime is not rendered ineffective.
16. I further submit that repeated elections caused by defections and resignations impose a substantial burden on the public exchequer and undermine electoral stability.
17. I submit that I am filing this Writ Petition in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation from and out of my own funds. My Permanent Account Number (PAN) is AAFPR1527G. My annual income is approximately Rs.2,50,000/-. I have no personal, pecuniary or private interest in the subject matter of the present proceedings. The petition is filed solely in the larger public interest for preserving constitutional governance, electoral integrity and the effective implementation of the antidefection law. To the best of my knowledge, no other petition seeking identical relief has been filed before this Hon’ble Court. I undertake to abide by any orders, including costs, that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court and seek liberty to file additional affidavits, if necessary, at a later stage.
18. I state that the issue involved transcends individual political disputes and concerns the larger constitutional values of representative democracy, constitutional morality, electoral integrity and faithful implementation of the Tenth Schedule. The petitioner therefore invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
G R O U N D S
a) The impugned action is contrary to the object, purpose and constitutional philosophy underlying the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India, which was introduced to curb unprincipled political defections and preserve democratic stability.
b) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651, recognised that the Tenth Schedule constitutes a vital constitutional mechanism intended to strengthen parliamentary democracy and prevent erosion of public confidence in elected institutions. The impugned action defeats the very purpose of the said constitutional scheme.
c) The Hon’ble Speaker, while exercising powers under the Constitution, is required to act in a manner that advances constitutional objectives and not in a manner that renders constitutional safeguards illusory. 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.
d) The impugned action is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it permits similarly situated legislators to evade constitutional consequences through resignation, thereby frustrating the operation of the anti-defection law.
e) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil
v. Karnataka Legislative Assembly Speaker, (2020) 2 SCC 595, recognised the importance of maintaining the effectiveness of the anti-defection framework and observed that constitutional authorities must ensure that the constitutional scheme is not defeated by procedural devices.
f) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly, (2020) 2 SCC 617, emphasised the necessity of expeditious disposal of disqualification proceedings and recognised the serious constitutional consequences flowing from delays in deciding petitions under the Tenth Schedule.
g) Once proceedings under the Tenth Schedule have been initiated, the constitutional obligation of the Hon’ble Speaker to determine the question of disqualification cannot ordinarily be defeated by acceptance of resignation, particularly where the resignation is intrinsically connected with the alleged act of defection.
h) The impugned action has the effect of rendering pending disqualification proceedings infructuous and thereby nullifies a constitutional process expressly created by the Constitution for maintaining legislative discipline and political accountability.
i) The impugned action undermines constitutional morality, representative democracy, political accountability and the purity of the electoral process, all of which constitute essential features of the constitutional framework.
j) The electorate voted for candidates on the basis of their declared political affiliation and programme. Any interpretation permitting elected representatives to resign and immediately align with another political formation, without first facing adjudication under the Tenth Schedule, would defeat the democratic mandate and erode public confidence in constitutional institutions.
k) The impugned notifications are therefore liable to be quashed as being arbitrary, unconstitutional, contrary to the Tenth Schedule and opposed to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, calling for the records relating to (i) Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary No.259, Part II, Section 1, No.II(1)/LAS/7(n)/2026 dated 25.05.2026 (ii) Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary No.260, Part II, Section 1, No.II(1)/LAS/7(o)/2026 dated 25.05.2026 and (iii) Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary No.261, Part II, Section 1 No.II(1)/LAS/7(p)/2026 dated 25.05.2026, whereby the resignations of Respondents 3 to 5 from the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly were accepted and notified, quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the object and purpose of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India, against Respondents 3 to 5, and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to adjudicate and dispose of the pending disqualification petitions in accordance with law and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice and thus render justice.
Solemnly affirm at Chennai on this BEFORE ME, the 5th day of June 2026 and
Signed his name in my presence. ADVOCATE CHENNAI MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION
(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
W.P.No. of 2026
Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi,
Represented by its President
M.L.Ravi,
S/o.Lakshmipathi,
No.21, Venkatraman Street,
Seven Wells, Chennai-600 001 …Petitioner
Versus
1. The Hon’ble Speaker,
Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly,
Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009
2.The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009
3.Smt.Maragatham Kumaravel,
Maduranthagam Legislative Assembly Constituency,
Maduranthagam, Chengalpattu District
4. S.Jayakumar,
Perundurai Legislative Assembly Constituency,
Perundurai, Erode District
5. P.Sathyabama,
Dharapuram Legislative Assembly Constituency,
Dharapuram, Tiruppur District ..Respondents
WRIT PETITION
The address for service of all notices and processes on the
Petitioner is that of her Counsels
M/s.R.T.Chidambaram, T.Sivagnanasambandan, A.Gowdhaman &
P.Gajendrababu at No.394, New Additional Law Chambers, High
Court Buildings, Chennai- 600104.
The address for service of all notices and processes on the respondents are as stated above.
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is therefore pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, calling for the records relating to (i) Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary No.259, Part II, Section 1,
No.II(1)/LAS/7(n)/2026 dated 25.05.2026 (ii) Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary No.260, Part II, Section 1, No.II(1)/LAS/7(o)/2026 dated 25.05.2026 and (iii) Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary No.261, Part II, Section 1 No.II(1)/LAS/7(p)/2026 dated 25.05.2026, whereby the resignations of Respondents 3 to 5 from the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly were accepted and notified, quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the object and purpose of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India against Respondents 3 to 5, and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to adjudicate and dispose of the pending disqualification petitions in accordance with law and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice and thus render justice.
Dated at Chennai on this the 5th day of June 2026
Counsel for Petitioner
Represented by its President
M.L.Ravi,
S/o.Lakshmipathi,
No.21, Venkatraman Street,
Seven Wells, Chennai-600 001 …Petitioner
Versus
The Hon’ble Speaker,
Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly,
& 5 others ..Respondents
PAPER BOOK INDEX
S.No . Date Particulars Page No.
1 05.06.2026 Dates and Events
2 05.06.2026 Synopsis
3 05.06.2026 Coding Sheet
4 05.06.2026 Court Fee
5 05.06.2026 Writ Petition
5 05.06.2026 Dispense with Petition
6 05.06.2026 Common Affidavit
7 27.05.2026 Impugned order by the 1st Responden
TYPE SET
8 01.04.2016 Party Registration Copy
9 25.05.2026 Impugned order by the 1st Responden
10 Nil PAN Copy
11 05.06.2026 Vakkalat
12 05.06.2026 Batta
Dated at Chennai on this the 5th day of June 2026
Counsel for Petitioner
Represented by its President
M.L.Ravi,
S/o.Lakshmipathi,
No.21, Venkatraman Street,
Seven Wells, Chennai-600 001 …Petitioner
Versus
The Hon’ble Speaker,
Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly,
& 5 others ..Respondents
DATES AND EVENTS
S.No Date Particulars
1 01.04.2016 Party Registration Copy
2 27.5.2026 Impugned order by the 1st Respondent
Dated at Chennai on this the 5th day of June 2026.
Counsel for Petitioner
Represented by its President
M.L.Ravi,
S/o.Lakshmipathi,
No.21, Venkatraman Street,
Seven Wells, Chennai-600 001 …Petitioner
Versus
The Hon’ble Speaker,
Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly,
& 5 others ..Respondents
SYNOPSIS
The present Writ Petition raises issues of considerable constitutional significance concerning the integrity of the antidefection mechanism embodied in the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India and the preservation of parliamentary democracy.
Respondents 3 to 5 were elected as Members of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly on the ticket of a political party forming part of the opposition alliance. Subsequently, they allegedly acted contrary to the directions and political position of their parent party and supported the ruling dispensation during the confidence motion in the Legislative Assembly. Consequent thereto, proceedings seeking their disqualification under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India were initiated and were admittedly pending before the Hon’ble Speaker.
While the said disqualification proceedings were pending consideration, Respondents 3 to 5 tendered their resignations from the Legislative Assembly. The Hon’ble Speaker accepted
the resignations and notified the resultant vacancies without first adjudicating the pending disqualification petitions.
The petitioner submits that the acceptance of resignations during the pendency of disqualification proceedings defeats the object of the Tenth Schedule, enables elected representatives to circumvent constitutional accountability, and frustrates the constitutional mandate intended to curb unprincipled political defections.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the Tenth Schedule is a constitutional mechanism intended to preserve democratic stability, political morality, and the purity of the electoral mandate. The constitutional validity and importance of the anti-defection law were affirmed by the Constitution Bench in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu. The Supreme Court has further emphasized that Speakers cannot permit the constitutional process of disqualification to be defeated through strategic resignations and that constitutional authorities must act in a manner that advances the purpose of the Tenth Schedule.
The present writ petition is therefore filed seeking judicial review of the impugned notifications accepting the resignations of Respondents 3 to 5 and for consequential reliefs.
Dated at Chennai on this the 5th day of June 2026.
Counsel for Petitioner
