'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.

Cite the Tamil Nadu dispute to show why the Speaker's objectivity is contested in defection matters and why courts set deadlines.

• The AIADMK alleged the Tamil Nadu Speaker accepted six resignations the same day without a real inquiry.
• The Madras High Court upheld the acceptance but directed the Speaker to decide pending disqualification cases within two months.
• Since Kihoto Hollohan (1992), Speakers' anti-defection decisions are open to judicial review.

• 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.