# Madras HC upholds AIADMK MLAs' resignations but says disqualification cases must go on

URL: https://upsc.help/current-affairs/2026-10-14/madras-hc-resignation-disqualification-aiadmk/
Date: 14 October 2026 (2026-10-14)
Source: The Hindu, National
UPSC papers: GS2
Publisher: upsc.help (Pratidin), free and open-source UPSC Civil Services current affairs. Not affiliated with UPSC. Every fact was checked against the source reports by a separate review before publishing.

**In one line:** The Madras High Court has held that the Tamil Nadu Speaker rightly accepted six AIADMK MLAs' resignations, but that disqualification cases against them for defying the whip must still be decided within two months.

On 13 October 2026, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, Chief Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, upheld Tamil Nadu Speaker J.C.D. Prabhakar's acceptance of the resignations of six MLAs elected on the AIADMK ticket who then joined the ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK). The plea was filed by AIADMK whip Agri S.S. Krishnamurthy. The Court held that the resignations were genuine and voluntary and that the Speaker was not expected to conduct a detailed inquiry into the members' motives. It also held that resignation and disqualification are separate constitutional processes, so accepting the resignations did not make the pending disqualification proceedings academic. It directed the Speaker to decide those proceedings within two months.

The dispute began after the May 2026 Assembly election. TVK won 108 seats, ten short of the 118 needed for a majority. The AIADMK issued a whip to its members to vote against the government in the confidence motion on 13 May, but 25 AIADMK MLAs voted for the TVK government led by Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay, which won with 144 votes. Proceedings under the Tenth Schedule (the anti-defection law) began the next day; some MLAs apologised and the cases against them were dropped. The six MLAs later resigned, the Speaker accepted the resignations on the day they were submitted, and they joined TVK. Two of them, Maragatham Kumaravel and P. Sathyabama, have since won by-elections on TVK tickets.

The AIADMK argued that Article 190 required a real inquiry into whether the resignations were voluntary, that the same-day acceptance pointed to horse-trading, and that the party should have been heard. Senior Advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan argued that under Article 190(3)(b) the Speaker checks only whether a resignation is genuine, not why a member is leaving. Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, for the MLAs, said resigning before joining another party can be a legitimate form of dissent. In its 2019 Karnataka MLAs judgment, the Supreme Court had held that the 'taint of disqualification' does not vanish when a member resigns. The outcome matters because a member disqualified under the Tenth Schedule cannot be appointed a minister or hold a remunerative political post for a period fixed by the Constitution.

## Prelims facts

- On 13 October 2026, the Madras High Court upheld the Tamil Nadu Speaker's acceptance of six AIADMK MLAs' resignations and directed him to decide pending disqualification cases within two months.
- The Court held that resignation and disqualification are separate processes, and that the Speaker need not inquire into a member's motives for resigning.
- Under the proviso to Article 190(3), added by the 33rd Amendment (1974), the Speaker must not accept a resignation that is not voluntary or genuine.
- The Tenth Schedule was added by the 52nd Amendment (1985); Kihoto Hollohan (1992) made the Speaker's decisions under it subject to judicial review.
- In Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil (2019), the Supreme Court held that resignation does not wipe out the taint of disqualification but that the Speaker cannot bar a disqualified member from contesting.

## Quick recall

- **Bench that delivered the Madras HC ruling on 13 October 2026?** Chief Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan.
- **How many AIADMK MLAs' resignations did the Court uphold?** Six.
- **Time given to the Speaker to decide the disqualification cases?** Two months.
- **Which amendment added the proviso on 'voluntary or genuine' resignations?** The 33rd Amendment, 1974.
- **Which amendment added the Tenth Schedule?** The 52nd Amendment, 1985.
- **Which amendment deleted the 'split' exception?** The 91st Amendment, 2003.
- **Which case made the Speaker's anti-defection decisions subject to judicial review?** Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992).
- **Which Articles bar disqualified defectors from ministerial and remunerative political posts?** Articles 75(1B), 164(1B) and 361B.

## Prelims practice question

With reference to the resignation of a member of a State Legislative Assembly, consider the following statements:
1. A member resigns by writing under his hand addressed to the Speaker.
2. The Speaker must not accept the resignation if satisfied that it is not voluntary or genuine.
3. Once a resignation is accepted, pending disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule automatically lapse.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

(a) 1 only
(b) 1 and 2 only
(c) 2 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3

Answer: (b) 1 and 2 only. Statements 1 and 2 restate Article 190(3)(b) and its proviso. Statement 3 is wrong: the Supreme Court in 2019 and the Madras High Court in October 2026 held that resignation does not end pending disqualification proceedings.

## UPSC previous-year questions this connects to

- UPSC Prelims 2014, Prelims: Which one of the following Schedules of the Constitution of India contains provisions regarding anti-defection? (a) Second Schedule (b) Fifth Schedule (c) Eighth Schedule (d) Tenth Schedule (https://upsc.help/pyq/prelims/#q337)
- UPSC Mains 2013, GS2: The role of individual MPs (Members of Parliament) has diminished over the years and as a result, healthy constructive debates on policy issues are not usually witnessed. How far can this be attributed to the anti-defection law, which was legislated but with a different intention? (https://upsc.help/pyq/q338-role-individual-mps-members-parliament-has-diminished/)
  How to use this story in the answer: Use the Tamil Nadu case to show how tightly the whip binds legislators, so that dissent now takes the form of resignation rather than debate.
- UPSC Mains 2020, GS2: 'Once a speaker, Always a speaker'! Do you think the practice should be adopted to impart objectivity to the office of the Speaker of Lok Sabha? What could be its implications for the robust functioning of parliamentary business in India. (https://upsc.help/pyq/q339-once-speaker-always-speaker-do-you-think/)
  How to use this story in the answer: Cite the Tamil Nadu dispute to show why the Speaker's objectivity is contested in defection matters and why courts set deadlines.

## Mains practice question

Resignation is increasingly used as a route around the anti-defection law. In the light of recent judicial rulings, examine whether the Tenth Schedule adequately addresses this practice. (250 words)

### Model answer

On 13 October 2026, the Madras High Court upheld the Tamil Nadu Speaker's acceptance of six AIADMK MLAs' resignations but held that disqualification proceedings against them must still be decided, within two months.

## What the law provides
- **Tenth Schedule** (52nd Amendment, 1985): a member is disqualified for voluntarily giving up party membership or voting against the party whip.
- **91st Amendment (2003):** removed the split exception and, through Articles 164(1B) and 361B, bars disqualified members from ministerial and remunerative political posts for a period.
- **Article 190(3)(b):** the Speaker must not accept a resignation that is not voluntary or genuine.

## How courts have handled resignation
- **Kihoto Hollohan (1992):** Speaker's decisions are open to judicial review.
- **Karnataka MLAs case (2019):** the 'taint of disqualification' does not vanish on resignation, but the Speaker cannot bar a member from contesting.

## Gaps that remain
- Members can resign, switch parties and return through by-elections; two of the six MLAs have already won on TVK tickets.
- Disqualification decisions rest with a Speaker who belongs to a party, and delay can blunt the law; here the Court had to fix a two-month limit.

## Way forward
- Time-bound decisions on disqualification petitions as a rule, not case by case.
- Decide pending disqualification alongside resignation, so penalties under Articles 164(1B) and 361B are not avoided.

The Tenth Schedule curbs open defection, but resignation-based switching shows it needs clearer timelines to keep faith with the voter's mandate.

## The basics

## Why this matters

India's anti-defection law was meant to stop legislators from switching sides for office or money after being elected on a party's ticket. Over time, a different route has appeared: resign the seat, join the new party, and contest again. The Madras High Court's ruling of 13 October 2026 shows how courts are handling this route.

## Two different ways to lose a seat

Both end with a vacant seat, but only disqualification carries extra penalties. That is why parties keep pressing disqualification cases even after a member has resigned, and why courts have held that the two processes run separately. The resignation rule is explained in Article 190 and resignation, and the defection rule in Tenth Schedule.

## How the law developed

## The Tamil Nadu sequence

The key precedent is the Karnataka MLAs case (2019), and the Speaker's position is discussed in Kihoto Hollohan judgment (1992).

## Sources

- https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-aiadmk-mla-resignation-acceptance-upheld-554391
- https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/madras-hc-upholds-turncoat-aiadmk-mlas-resignations-sets-2-month-deadline-for-disqualification-pleas
- https://openthemagazine.com/india/can-mlas-resign-their-way-out-of-the-anti-defection-law-madras-hc-rules-in-aiadmk-tvk-case
- https://www.freepressjournal.in/india/madras-hc-upholds-6-aiadmk-mlas-resignations-orders-speaker-to-finish-disqualification-proceedings-in-2-months
- https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2019/11/13/breaking-karnataka-mlas-disqualification-case-sc-upholds-speakers-order-but-allows-disqualified-mlas-to-contest-by-elections/
- https://www.constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/india/tamnd33.htm