The Madras high court on Tuesday directed Tamil Nadu assembly Speaker JCD Prabhakar to conclude within two months disqualification proceedings against six former All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) legislators, who quit the party and joined the ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagham (TVK). It, however, upheld the speaker’s decision to accept the resignations of the six MLAs.
A bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and justice G Arul Murugan held that the acceptance of the resignations was constitutionally valid and that the speaker did not need to conduct a “roving inquiry” into whether the resignations had been tendered voluntarily by the MLAs. It recorded that the speaker had conducted a limited inquiry to find out whether the resignations were genuine and voluntary.
25 AIADMK supporters of TVK
The bench, however, made it clear that accepting the resignations did not bring the pending disqualification proceedings to an end automatically. Pointing out that acceptance of resignations and the disqualification proceedings that were pending against four out of the six MLAs were “distinct constitutional processes”, the bench said the speaker was competent to accept the resignations notwithstanding the pending disqualification proceedings.
The present dispute arose after 25 AIADMK legislators allegedly defied the party whip and voted in favour of the TVK government’s confidence motion on May 13 this year. A day later, the AIADMK sought their disqualification under the 10th Schedule of the Constitution, better known as the anti-defection law, for defying party whip.
{{/usCountry}}The present dispute arose after 25 AIADMK legislators allegedly defied the party whip and voted in favour of the TVK government’s confidence motion on May 13 this year. A day later, the AIADMK sought their disqualification under the 10th Schedule of the Constitution, better known as the anti-defection law, for defying party whip.
{{/usCountry}}Also Read I AIADMK defectors win bypolls in Tamil Nadu, help CM Vijay's TVK strengthen position
While the proceedings against some of the legislators took a separate course, six MLAs — S Jayakumar, Maragatham Kumaravel, P Sathyabama, Dr Esakki Subbaya, C Vijayabhaskar, and MR Vijayabhaskar — resigned from the assembly, quit the party and subsequently joined the TVK.
The speaker accepted their resignations between May 26 and June 29, prompting AIADMK whip Agri SS Krishnamurthy to move the high court. He challenged the acceptance of the resignations while disqualification proceedings remained pending, arguing that the resignations could circumvent the consequences of the anti-defection law.
The speaker defended his decision, maintaining that he had satisfied himself that the resignations were voluntary and genuine. The high court on Tuesday upheld the acceptance of the resignations but clarified that the pending disqualification proceedings must still be decided within two months.
The case brings to focus a recurring problem under the anti-defection law, especially the role of the speaker in deciding disqualification petitions against legislators accused of switching political allegiance or defying party whips.
The anti-defection dilemma
In 1992, the Supreme Court, in the Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu case had held that speakers while deciding disqualification petitions under the 10th Schedule act as tribunals and that their decisions are subject to judicial review.
In 2020, the apex court in the Keisham Meghachandra Singh v Manipur assembly speaker case held that disqualification petitions must ordinarily be decided within a reasonable period and that three months would generally be the outer limit, unless there existed exceptional circumstances.
Also Read I SC rejects plea against dropping disqualification proceedings against AIADMK MLAs
In the present case, the high court said it had chosen to trust the constitutional institution entrusted with deciding questions of disqualification rather than allow political considerations to determine the outcome.
“The present batch of cases poses an unforeseeable dilemma before this court. The ongoing conflict between constitutional morality and political morality,” the court said, adding it had consciously chosen to leave the question of disqualification to the speaker, trusting him to discharge his constitutional responsibilities under the Tenth Schedule.