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?

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.

• 25 AIADMK MLAs defied the party whip in Tamil Nadu's confidence vote of 13 May 2026, triggering Tenth Schedule proceedings the next day.
• Six of them resigned and joined TVK; the Madras High Court upheld the resignations on 13 October 2026.
• Their counsel argued that resigning before joining another party is a legitimate form of dissent.

• 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.