Chief justice bench order notice to all resptTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction) W.P. No. of 2026 Agri S.S. Krishnamurthy, Son of S. Sundaresan, Official Whip, All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, (AIADMK) MGR Maaligai, No.226, Avvai Shanmugham Salai, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014 …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. The Election Commission of India, Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi 110 001. 4. The Chief Electoral officer, Principal Secretary to the Government, Public Elections.III Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. 5. Dr.Esakki Subaya 225.Ambasamudram Legislative Assembly Constituency, 31/70,Utchimahakali Koil Street, Pirancheri, Gopalasamudram, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli 627 451 …Respondents AFFIDAVIT OF AGRI S.S. KRISHNAMURTHY I, Agri S.S. Krishnamurthy, son of S. Sundaresan, aged about 66 years, official whip of AIADMK party, having office at MGR Maaligai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.P. No. of 2026

Agri S.S. Krishnamurthy,
Son of S. Sundaresan,
Official Whip,
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, (AIADMK) MGR Maaligai, No.226, Avvai Shanmugham Salai,
Royapettah, Chennai 600 014
…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. The Election Commission of India, Nirvachan Sadan,
Ashoka Road, New Delhi 110 001.

4. The Chief Electoral officer,
Principal Secretary to the Government,
Public Elections.III Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

5. Dr.Esakki Subaya
225.Ambasamudram Legislative Assembly Constituency,
31/70,Utchimahakali Koil Street,
Pirancheri, Gopalasamudram,
Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli 627 451
…Respondents

AFFIDAVIT OF AGRI S.S. KRISHNAMURTHY
I, Agri S.S. Krishnamurthy, son of S. Sundaresan, aged about 66 years, official whip of AIADMK party, having office at MGR Maaligai, No.226, Avvai Shanmugham Salai, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014, do hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm and state as follows:
I. STATUS OF THE DEPONENT
1. I am the petitioner in the above Writ Petition and as such I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. I am competent to swear to this affidavit.
2. I am the duly appointed Official Whip of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, hereinafter referred to as “AIADMK”, and I am swearing to this affidavit in my capacity as such Whip. I am an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly representing No.65, Kalasapakkam Constituency in Tiruvannamalai District. I completed my Bachelor of Law degree from Madras Law College after obtaining my graduation in B.Sc. (Agriculture) in the year 1982. I have successfully contested elections to the Legislative Assembly on several occasions and have discharged my duties as a Minister, having held various portfolios in the past. Owing to my academic background in Agriculture and my roots in an agriculturist family, I am fondly known and commonly referred to by the nickname “Agri.” II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. I submit that the present Writ Petition challenges the illegal and unconstitutional action of the 1st Respondent, Hon’ble Speaker of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly in accepting the resignation of Dr.Esakki Subaya from the post of Member of Legislative Assembly elected from 225. Ambasamudram Constituency under the ticket given by AIADMK on 26.05.2026 evidenced by the issuance of publication in Tamilnadu Government Gazette in No.262 on the same date and the consequential communication issued by the
Respondent No.4 dated 09.06.2026, in reference email/Letter
No.16300/2026-3, insofar as the submissions of resignation on 26.05.2026 and followed by its acceptance on the same day in violation of Article 190(3)(b) and Chapter V of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules, is a subject matter of the present Writ Petition. Separate Writ Petition has been filed challenging the submission, acceptance of resignations submitted on 25.05.2026 by Thiru. S. Jayakumar,103. Perundurai Legislative Assembly
Constituency, Tmt. Maragatham Kumaravel, 35. Maduranthagam
Legislative Assembly Constituency and Smt. P. Sathyabama, 101. Dharapuram Legislative Assembly Constituency.
4. I submit that the said Members were elected on the ticket of AIADMK, a popular political party. That disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India, preferred before the Hon’ble Speaker were pending consideration at the time when the resignations were submitted.
5. I further submit that during the pendency of such disqualification proceedings, the said MLAs tendered resignation, which came to be accepted with extraordinary haste, without proper enquiry, and in violation of constitutional and statutory mandates.
6. The All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, “AIADMK”, was founded on 17 October 1972 by Puratchi Thalaivar Dr. M.G. Ramachandran. The party subsequently emerged as a major political force, forming governments in Puducherry and Tamil Nadu on multiple occasions, including under the leadership of Puratchi Thalaivar Dr. M.G. Ramachandran, later Puratchi Thalaivi Dr. J. Jayalalithaa and Thiru.Edappadi K Palanisami. Over the years, the party has consistently secured electoral mandates and held significant positions in the State Assembly.
7. In the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly elections held in April 2026, the AIADMK secured 47 seats. Thereafter, a new government was formed by the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam, hereinafter referred to as “TVK”, with the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, hereinafter referred to as “DMK” functioning as the opposition. Following these developments, a serious internal situation arose within the AIADMK when 25 of its elected Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) defied the party whip and voted in favour of the confidence motion for the newly formed government on 13.05.2026.
8. Consequently, on 14.05.2026, the AIADMK, invoking the provisions of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India, submitted petitions before the Hon’ble Speaker seeking disqualification of the said MLAs. Subsequently, upon the request made by the General Secretary of the party, the conduct of 21 out of the 25 MLAs was condoned, and the proceedings against them were withdrawn. However, the disqualification proceedings continued in respect of the remaining four MLAs.
9. On 09.06.2026, the Hon’ble Speaker announced that no
disqualification action would be pursued against the aforesaid 21
MLAs, noting that the party had condoned their conduct under the Tenth Schedule. It was further stated by the Hon’ble Speaker that the petitions concerning the remaining four MLAs were under consideration and that appropriate orders would be passed in accordance with law.
10. It is respectfully submitted that the sequence of events, listed hereunder, indicate that the Hon’ble Speaker has acted upon the representations received from the party leadership. However, the manner and timing of the Hon’ble Speaker, who demonstratively has acted as a puppet of the ruling party, in accepting resignation from the MLAs and hurriedly announcing that the seats fell vacant owing to the fact that they had contemporaneous of submitting their resignation, evidently even before the ink acknowledging receipt of letters of resignation could dry, were given membership cards by a Minister of the ruling party followed by hurried declaration issued at
9 pm announcing that the seats owing to their resignation fell vacant. The manner in which the entire event was stage managed, raises concerns regarding the exercise of impartial discretion in dealing with the pending disqualification proceedings and the hidden agenda in accepting the resignations without subjectively satisfying in that regard as required by Constitution of India and Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly Rules. That the sequence of events surrounding the submission of the letter by the Respondent No.5, handed over to the Hon’ble Speaker in his Chamber, accompanied by individuals evidently seen to be exerting pressure and influence on him and persons deputed to ensure that the 5th Respondent submits his resignation clearly demonstrates that the said 5th Respondent and the other three MLAs, who had submitted resignation on 25-5-2026, were not acting independently or voluntarily, but was acting under the control, dictates, and influence of third parties. These circumstances, widely reported in news coverage and media reports and remaining uncontroverted, establish a clear pattern of coercion, undue influence and lack of free will, thereby vitiating the entire process and rendering the impugned action illegal, arbitrary, and liable to be set aside.
III. LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS THAT ARE GERMANE AND
NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICATION OF THIS PETITION
S. No. Dates Events
1. 30.03.2026 Gazette Notification & Date of filing nomination in respect of Tamil Nadu 17th Legislative Assembly Election.

2. 06.04.2026 Last day of filing Nomination
3. 07.04.2026 Scrutiny of nomination
4. 23.04.2026 Election polling day
5. 04.05.2026 Counting of votes
6. 05.05.2026 Resignation of former Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, accepted by the Hon’ble Governor.
7. 06.05.2026 Press release of the Office of Hon’ble Governor of Tamil Nadu Dissolving the 16th Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly (w.e.f)
05.05.2026

8. 06.05.2026 Statement given by AIADMK leader Mr. C.Ve. Shanmugam stating that any decision regarding extending support to Tamilaga Vetri Kazhagam (TVK) would be taken by the party.
9. 07.05.2026 The Hon’ble Governor of Tamil Nadu invited Thiru. C.Joseph Vijay, the Chief Minister designate of his Party, to form the Government. However, he has not established majority on the said date.

10. 09.05.2026 Thereafter, the Hon’ble Governor called Thiru. C.Joseph Vijay and appointed him as Chief Minister and directed the Chief Minister to seek the vote of confidence on the floor of the House on or before 13th
May 2026
11. 09.05.2026 Members of Legislative Assembly (AIADMK) unanimously chose Thiru Edapadi K. Palanisamy as the leader of Legislative Party
(AIADMK)
12. 10.05.2026 Swearing in ceremony of Chief Minister Thiru C. Joseph Vijay along with 9 Ministers was held.
13. 11.05.2026 Letter issued by the General Secretary of AIADMK party to the Hon’ble Speaker informing the appointment of Legislative Party
Leader of AIADMK and appointment of whip by the party.
14. 11.05.2026 Thiru S. P. Velumani addressed a rival communication to the Hon’ble Pro-term Speaker of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly concerning the appointment of the Legislative Party Leader, Whip, and other office bearers, issued on the official AIADMK (Headquarters) letterhead. It is pertinent to note that the four MLAs who have since resigned were also present in this faction.
15. 11.05.2026 Communications issued to 47 MLAs of AIADMK by the Whip
Thiru. Agri S. Krishnamurthy.
16. 11.05.2026 Letter issued to the Party Members by Dr. C. Vijayabaskar
17. 12.05.2026 Letter addressed to the Hon’ble
Speaker by the General Secretary

of the AIADMK and elected Leader of the Party
18. 12.05.2026 Press meet of Mr. C. Ve. Shanmugam along with rebel faction.
19. 13.05.2026 25 AIADMK MLAs (Rebel faction) voting in favour of the confidence motion contrary to the direction of Whip. The resigned 4 MLAs were also present.
20. 14.05.2026 Petition filed with the Hon’ble Speaker invoking Paragraphs 2 (1) (a) / (b) and 6 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India seeking disqualification of MLAs’ of AIADMK for having voluntarily given up party membership and announcing/voting against and contrary to direction of whip
21. 14.05.2026 Complaint preferred by the General Secretary of AIADMK to the His Excellency, the Hon’ble Governor of Tamilnadu.
22. 25.05.2026 Tmt. Maragatham Kumaravel (35 – Madurantakam constituency), Thiru S. Jayakumar (103 –
Perundurai constituency), Tmt. P. Sathyabama (101 – Dharapuram constituency) met Assembly Hon’ble Speaker Thiru. J.C.D. Prabhakar and handed over their Resignation Letter at around 2.30pm.
23. 25.05.2026
The abovementioned 3 MLAs immediately after handing over the resignation letter, went to the Secretariat Chamber/Office of Thiru Aadhav Arjuna (General Secretary – Election Management – TVK) wherein, they were formally

inducted in the Tamilaga Vetri Kazhagam (TVK).
24. 25.05.2026 Hon’ble Speaker Thiru. J.C.D. Prabhakar announced before Press that the resignation of the MLAs were accepted at 3.55 pm.
25. 25.05.2026 At 4.20 pm, the resigned MLAs met the Hon’ble Chief Minister/ President of TVK Mr. C. Joseph
Vijay.
26. 25.05.2026 Notification in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette in Nos.259 to 261 declaring the seats to constituency Nos.103. Perundurai, 35. Madurantakam (SC) and 101. Dharapuram (SC) in State of
Tamilnadu as vacant
27. 26.05.2026 Dr. Esakki Subaya (225 Ambasamudhram Constituency) tendered his resignation letter to Hon’ble Speaker Thiru.J. C. D. Prabhakar and joined in Tamilaga vetri kalagam (TVK).
28. 26.05.2026 Hon’ble Speaker Thiru. J.C.D. Prabhakar accepted the resignation submitted by Dr. Esakki Subaya.
29. 26.05.2026 Notification in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette in Nos.262 declaring the seat to constituency 225.Ambasamudram in State of Tamilnadu as vacant.
30. 09.06.2026 Communication issued by The
Chief Electoral officer, Principal Secretary to the Government,
Public Elections.III Department.
31. 12.06.2026 Hon’ble Speaker’s announcement to Press that Notices to 4 resigned MLAs have been issued in respect of the petition filed invoking Tenth Schedule to Constitution.

IV. PRE-MEDITATED ACTION AND RELIANCE ON NEWS MATERIALS
11. I submit that contemporaneous newspaper reports, media publications, and public domain materials, filed as Annexures, clearly indicate that:
1. The resignations were not spontaneous acts,
2. There existed prior political negotiations and realignment,
3. The MLAs were admitted into the ruling party immediately upon resignation,
thereby establishing that the entire sequence was pre-designed and orchestrated.
12. I submit that such media reports are relevant and admissible for demonstrating the surrounding circumstances, conduct and contemporaneous public record, which lend credibility to the Petitioner’s contention that the resignations were part of a calculated design to circumvent the proceedings under the Tenth Schedule.
V. VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
13. I submit that under Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution of India, a resignation by a Member of the Legislature shall take effect only upon the Hon’ble Speaker being satisfied that the same is voluntary and genuine.
14. I submit that the constitutional requirement of satisfaction is not an empty formality but a substantive safeguard intended to prevent coercion, inducement and political manipulation. That it is demonstrably evident that there is nothing on record to indicate that the Hon’ble Speaker applied his mind to the letters of resignation submitted by Respondents 5 to 8. Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution of India mandates that the Speaker must be satisfied that the resignation tendered by a Member is both voluntary and genuine. Such satisfaction is not an empty formality but a constitutional obligation requiring due application of mind. In the absence of any material reflecting such satisfaction, the mere receipt and mechanical acceptance of the resignation letters cannot be sustained in law. The Hon’ble Speaker, without undertaking any inquiry or affording due scrutiny, could not have concluded that the resignations were voluntary and genuine. Consequently, the impugned acceptance of the resignation letters stands vitiated by non-application of mind, failure to discharge a Constitutional duty and therefore the decision to accept the resignation of 5th Respondent and the consequential acts are liable to be set aside.
15. I submit that in the present case, as is evident from the facts no independent enquiry was conducted, resignation was submitted by the Respondent No.5 and previous day by the three MLAs accompanied by certain individuals and as no individual verification was undertaken, thereby rendering the Hon’ble Speaker’s
satisfaction illusory, mechanical, and legally untenable.
VI. CIRCUMVENTION OF TENTH SCHEDULE
16. I submit that the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution enshrines the anti-defection law, aimed at ensuring stability of elected governments and preventing unprincipled defections.
17. I am advised to submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in:
a) Rajendra Singh Rana -vs- Swami Prasad Maurya, reported in
(2007) 4 SCC 270,
b) Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil -vs- Speaker, Karnataka Legislative
Assembly, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 595 and
c) Shivraj Singh Chouhan & Others -vs- Speaker Madhya Pradesh
Legislative Assembly and Others, reported in (2020) 17 SCC 1,
has held that resignation cannot be used as a device to defeat disqualification proceedings.
18. I submit that permitting resignation while disqualification petitions are pending amounts to rendering the Tenth Schedule nugatory, defeating the constitutional mandate and legitimizing political defection.
19. That it is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Speaker, having been apprised of the imminent action proposed to be taken by the AIADMK under the Tenth Schedule, publicly contended on 12.06.2026 through media statements that notice had already been issued in the petition filed under the Tenth Schedule. The timing and tenor of such statement prima facie indicate that the Hon’ble Speaker had ‘got wind’ of the proposed proceedings and acted in haste to pre-empt or counter the same. Such conduct further reinforces the apprehension of bias and lack of neutrality and demonstrates that the actions of the Hon’ble Speaker were not guided by independent constitutional considerations, but were influenced by extraneous factors, thereby vitiating the entire decision-making process.
VII. FAILURE TO EXERCISE CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION
20. I submit that the Hon’ble Speaker, while acting under the Tenth Schedule, performs a quasi-judicial function, as recognised in Kihoto Hollohan -vs- Zachillhu, reported in 1992 Supp (2) SCC
651 and S.R. Bommai -vs- Union of India & others, reported in (1994) 3 SCC 1.
21. I submit that the Hon’ble Speaker was constitutionally obligated to take up and adjudicate the disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule at the first instance, rather than permitting the Members concerned to tender resignations with a view to frustrate and render infructuous the pending disqualification proceedings.
22. I submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 617, has categorically held that: (a) Disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule must be
decided within a reasonable time; and
(b) Any undue delay or inaction in deciding such petitions undermines the very edifice of democratic governance and
constitutional morality.
23. I submit that in the present case, the inaction of the Hon’ble
Speaker in adjudicating the disqualification petitions, coupled with the hurried and mechanical acceptance of the resignation letters, amounts to a clear abdication of constitutional duty and obligation. Such conduct has the effect of defeating the object and purpose of the Tenth Schedule and is liable to be interfered with by this Hon’ble Court.
VIII. NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ASSEMBLY RULES
24. I submit that under the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules, including Rule 99(19), the Hon’ble
Speaker is required to:
a) conduct a personal enquiry,
b) ascertain absence of coercion, inducement or pecuniary gain,
c) ensure that the resignation is truly voluntary.
25. I submit that in the present case, inspite of a complaint at the floor of the assembly raised by the General Secretary of AIADMK and the Leader of Opposition from DMK,
a) No such enquiry was conducted,
b) Allegations of monetary inducement and horse trading were ignored,
c) There was no examination of quid pro quo for voting in favour of the ruling party.
26. I submit that failure to comply with mandatory procedural safeguards renders the acceptance of resignation void ab initio. The actions of the Hon’ble Speaker regrettably give an impression reminiscent of an era where discretion appeared unfettered, rather than being guided by established principles of law and constitutional restraint. The conduct of the Hon’ble Speaker, with respect, appears to fall short of the constitutional mandate of fairness and rule of law, creating an impression of arbitrariness that the Constitution seeks to avoid.
IX. PECUNIARY INDUCEMENT AND VOTE OF CONFIDENCE
27. I submit that the said MLAs, Respondents to and the other
MLA had:
a) participated in vote of confidence proceedings,
b) supported the ruling party,
c) and within a short span of time resigned.
28. I submit that this sequence, coupled with public allegations and media reports, raises serious questions of:
a) pecuniary inducement,
b) quid pro quo arrangements,
c) undue influence.
29. I submit that such allegations ought to have been thoroughly investigated by the Hon’ble Speaker before accepting the
resignation. The failure to do so vitiates the decision.
X. FRAUD ON THE CONSTITUTION
30. I submit that the doctrine of fraud on the Constitution applies where power is exercised to defeat constitutional objectives.
31. I submit that the coordinated conduct of:
a) tendering resignation during pendency of disqualification,
b) immediate induction into another political party,
c) absence of enquiry,
clearly establishes that the resignation was not bona fide, but a device to evade constitutional consequences.
XI. BURDEN ON PUBLIC EXCHEQUER
32. I submit that the said MLAs were elected only recently and have resigned within a short period, thereby necessitating costly byelections.
33. I submit that this results in unwarranted burden on the State exchequer, misuse of public funds and avoidable administrative expenditure. I submit that such conduct undermines public trust and the sanctity of electoral mandate.
XII. ARBITRARINESS AND BIAS
34. I submit that the extreme haste in accepting resignations, disregarding pending proceedings, and the consequent political benefit accruing to the ruling party, give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The arbitrariness and malafides are further exhibited by the communication of the Respondent No.4 dated
09.06.2026, in reference email/Letter No.16300/2026-3. While the Hon’ble Speaker had announced that the letters of resignation was accepted only at 9 pm, the consequential communication issued by the Respondent no.4 dated 09.06.2026, in reference email/Letter No.16300/2026-3, more so on the same date is proof of
premeditated action.
35. I submit that the action of the Hon’ble Speaker is evidently arbitrary, tinged with malafide and amounts to act that could be classified as and one falling under a colourable exercise of power.
XIII. NON-SPEAKING ORDER
36. I submit that the impugned decision does not disclose:
a) reasons for satisfaction,
b) consideration of pending disqualification petitions,
c) examination of voluntariness.
37. I submit that absence of reasons renders the decision violative of principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside.
XIV. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF
38. I submit that unless the operation of the impugned resignation is stayed irreversible consequences will follow. The Election Commission of India, who has been impleaded as a Respondent in the present proceedings would proceed to announce by-elections and if the same is permitted to be conducted the relief claimed in the present writ petition may become infructuous.
XV. QUESTIONS OF LAW RAISED IN THIS PETITION
39. The following substantial questions of law arise for
consideration:
A. Whether the Hon’ble Speaker is bound to decide disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule prior to accepting resignation of
MLAs against whom such proceedings are pending?
B. Whether acceptance of resignation during the pendency of disqualification proceedings amounts to circumvention and
frustration of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India?
C. Whether the requirement under Article 190(3)(b) that resignation must be “voluntary and genuine” mandates a meaningful and independent enquiry by the Hon’ble Speaker?
D. Whether the impugned action of the Hon’ble Speaker, in accepting resignation without enquiry and in undue haste, is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India?
E. Whether the Hon’ble Speaker, while exercising powers under the Tenth Schedule, acts in a quasi-judicial capacity and is therefore required to adhere to principles of natural justice?
F. Whether resignation tendered in the backdrop of political inducement and immediate party-switching can be treated as voluntary within the meaning of Article 190(3)(b)?
XVI. MAINTAINABILITY & JUDICIAL REVIEW OF HON’BLE SPEAKER’S ORDER
40. It is most respectfully submitted that the impugned order/communication dated 09.06.2026 issued by the Hon’ble Speaker is amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While it is settled law that the Hon’ble Speaker, while acting under the Tenth Schedule, enjoys a degree of
constitutional finality, such finality is not absolute and is subject to judicial scrutiny on well-established and limited grounds.
41. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kihoto Hollohan -vs- Zachillhu, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651, has authoritatively held that the decision of the Hon’ble Speaker under the Tenth Schedule is subject to judicial review on grounds of mala fides, perversity, violation of constitutional mandates, non-compliance with rules of natural justice, and jurisdictional errors. The Hon’ble Court further clarified that the Hon’ble Speaker, while deciding disqualification petitions, acts as a quasi-judicial authority, and his decision is therefore open to scrutiny by Constitutional Courts.
42. Further, in Keisham Meghachandra Singh -vs- Speaker,
Manipur Legislative Assembly, (2020) 2 SCC 617, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court reiterated that inaction, delay, or conduct of the Hon’ble Speaker which defeats the purpose of the Tenth Schedule is subject to judicial interference, and emphasized that the Hon’ble Speaker cannot act in a manner so as to frustrate the constitutional scheme of anti-defection.
43. Additionally, in Rajendra Singh Rana -vs- Swami Prasad
Maurya, (2007) 4 SCC 270, it has been held that the Hon’ble Speaker’s decision is liable to be interfered with if it is based on extraneous considerations or ignores relevant material, thereby rendering the exercise of power arbitrary.
44. It is further submitted that in Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v.
Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly, (2020) 2 SCC 595, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has recognized that resignations tendered during the pendency of disqualification proceedings cannot be used as a device to evade constitutional consequences, and the Hon’ble Speaker’s actions in such circumstances must withstand judicial scrutiny.
45. The parameters for judicial review of Hon’ble Speaker’s orders, as consistently laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, include:
i) Violation of constitutional provisions (including Tenth Schedule and
Article 190(3)(b)) ii) Mala fide exercise of power or colourable exercise of jurisdiction iii) Failure to exercise jurisdiction or improper exercise thereof iv) Non-compliance with principles of natural justice
v) Arbitrariness and unreasonableness
vi) Consideration of irrelevant material or ignoring relevant material
46. Applying the above settled principles to the facts of the
present case, it is respectfully submitted that:
i) The Hon’ble Speaker has failed to adjudicate the pending disqualification petitions prior to accepting resignation, thereby frustrating the mandate of the Tenth Schedule; ii) The resignations were accepted with undue haste and without conducting the mandatory enquiry as required under Article
190(3)(b), rendering the satisfaction illusory; iii) The sequence of events clearly indicates a colourable exercise of power, intended to facilitate evasion of disqualification; iv) The impugned decision is non-speaking, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice.
47. In such circumstances, the impugned action squarely falls within the recognized grounds for judicial review, and this Hon’ble Court is empowered, and indeed duty-bound, to exercise its writ jurisdiction to prevent abuse of constitutional processes and to uphold the rule of law. Hence, the present Writ Petition is maintainable.
48. The Petitioner, by way of the present petition, respectfully challenges the acceptance of resignation by the Hon’ble Speaker
(Respondent No.1), evidenced by the Tamilnadu Government
Gazette bearing reference in No. 262 dated 26.05.2026, Part II, Section I, Notifications by the Legislative Assembly Secretariat and the consequential communication issued by the Respondent no.4 dated 09.06.2026, in reference email/Letter No.16300/2026-3, inter alia, on the following among other

GROUNDS
A. Violation of Article 190(3)(b) of Constitution of India
The Hon’ble Speaker failed to satisfy himself that the resignations were voluntary and genuine. No enquiry, personal interaction or verification was conducted. The satisfaction recorded is mechanical and illusory, rendering the impugned action unconstitutional.
B. Circumvention of the Tenth Schedule to Constitution of India
It is respectfully submitted that resignation was used as a device to defeat pending disqualification proceedings. Such conduct directly undermines the anti-defection law and renders the Tenth Schedule otiose. The following decisions are relied on in this regard:
a) Rajendra Singh Rana -vs- Swami Prasad Maurya, (2007)
4 SCC 270
b) Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil -vs- Speaker, Karnataka
Legislative Assembly, (2020) 2 SCC 595
c) Shivraj Singh Chouhan -vs- Speaker, MP Legislative
Assembly, (2020) 17 SCC 1
C. Failure to Exercise Quasi-Judicial Duty
The Hon’ble Speaker failed to adjudicate pending disqualification petitions before acting on the resignation letters. The following decisions are relied on in this regard:
a) Kihoto Hollohan -vs- Zachillhu, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651
b) Keisham Meghachandra Singh -vs- Speaker, Manipur LA,
(2020) 2 SCC 617
D. Arbitrariness and Colourable Exercise of Power
The extraordinary haste in accepting resignations, coupled with contemporaneous political developments, gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and mala fide. The impugned action amounts to arbitrary and colourable exercise of power.
E. Non-Compliance with Assembly Rules
Mandatory procedural safeguards, including requirement of enquiry under relevant Assembly Rules, have not been followed. This
renders the action void ab initio.
F. Fraud on the Constitution of India
The coordinated timing of resignation, induction into another political party, and avoidance of disqualification proceedings clearly establishes a fraud on constitutional provisions.
G. Non-Speaking and Unreasoned Decision
The impugned communication does not disclose any reasons, nor does it reflect application of mind. Absence of reasons violates settled principles of natural justice.
H. Public Law Injury
The resignations, occurring shortly after election, impose unnecessary burden on the public exchequer by necessitating byelections and undermine the sanctity of the electoral mandate.
I. Failure to Consider Relevant Material
The Hon’ble Speaker failed to consider relevant circumstances including pending disqualification petitions, conduct of MLAs in defying whip and the immediate political realignment. That the conduct of the Hon’ble Speaker, in exhibiting allegiance to the political party on whose ticket he was elected, instead of maintaining neutrality and impartiality as constitutionally required, is arbitrary, biased, and violative of the basic principles governing the office of the Speaker, thereby rendering his actions unsustainable in law. That the Speaker, being a constitutional authority, is duty-bound to act in a neutral and dispassionate manner. However, his evident partisan conduct amounts to a breach of constitutional morality, abuse of power and vitiates the decision-making process
XVII. REASON FOR DISPENSE WITH PRODUCTION OF THE ORDERS IMPUGNED
Neither the party AIADMK nor its General Secretary has been served or received copy of the order of the Hon’ble Speaker dated
26.05.2026 and the consequential communication issued by the Respondent no.4 dated 09.06.2026, in reference email/Letter No.16300/2026-3. Since there is an urgency along with the copy of the same made available from media members and after verifying and satisfying myself that the same are genuine, this writ petition is being filed. Thus I am seeking for an order to dispense with production of the original of the order of Respondent No.1 and consequential order of the Respondent no.4 with this writ petition. The impugned notifications were printed out from the official website. There is no dispute as regards the contents.
INTERIM RELIEF PRAYED
It is therefore in the interest of justice necessary and prayed that, pending disposal of the writ petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to
1. Permit the petitioner to prefer this writ petition with the photocopy of the acceptance of resignation by the Hon’ble
Speaker (Respondent No.1), evidenced by the Tamilnadu Government Gazette bearing reference in No. 262 dated
26.05.2026, Part II, Section I, Notifications by the Legislative Assembly Secretariat and the consequential communication issued by the Respondent no.4 dated 09.06.2026, in reference email/Letter No.16300/2026-3 and thereby
dispense with the production of the originals of the same;

2. stay all further proceedings pursuant to the declaration of vacancies in the concerned Assembly Constituencies by the order/communication dated 09.06.2026 in reference email/Letter No.16300/2026-3, issued by the Respondent No.4 and
3. direct the Election Commission of India, Respondent No.3, not to issue any notification or conduct any bye-election in respect of the 225-Ambasamudram Assembly Constituency in State of Tamilnadu until the disposal of the disqualification proceedings and/or final adjudication of the present writ petition and thus justice rendered.
XVIII. FINAL RELIEF PRAYED
It is therefore in the interest of justice necessary and prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the Respondent no.1, relating to the acceptance of resignation by the Respondent No.1, evidenced by the Tamilnadu Government Gazette bearing reference in No. 262 dated 26.05.2026, Part II, Section I, Notifications by the Legislative Assembly Secretariat and the consequential communication issued by the Respondent no.4 dated
09.06.2026, in reference email/Letter No.16300/2026-3 declaring vacancy to the 225-Ambasamudram Assembly Constituency in State of Tamilnadu and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondent no.1 to adjudicate and dispose of the disqualification petitions filed against the said Members under the Tenth Schedule within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.
Solemnly affirmed at Madras this the day of June, 2026 and signed his name in
my presence BEFORE ME,

ADVOCATE: MADRAS