CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Wednesday (June 17) sought responses from the TN assembly speaker and election authorities on a plea filed by AIADMK whip Agri SS Krishnamurthy alleging that the resignations of three party MLAs were accepted with undue haste and without proper enquiry before they joined the ruling TVK.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan issued notice to the Speaker and Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, the Election Commission of India, the Chief Electoral Officer and the three former MLAs.
Former AIADMK Minister and party whip Agri SS Krishnamurthy has moved the Madras High Court challenging the acceptance of the resignations of AIADMK MLAs Maragatham Kumaravel (Madurantakam), KS Jayakumar (Perundurai) and P Sathyabama (Dharapuram), who subsequently joined the ruling TVK.
Krishnamurthy contended that disqualification petitions against the three legislators under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution were pending before the Speaker at the time of their resignations. He alleged that the resignations were accepted with undue haste, without a proper enquiry, and in violation of constitutional and statutory requirements.
The petitioner sought a stay on all further proceedings arising from the declaration of vacancies in the three Assembly constituencies pursuant to the June 9 order issued by the Chief Electoral Officer. He also sought directions restraining the Election Commission of India and the Chief Electoral Officer from issuing any notification or conducting by-elections in the three constituencies.
During the hearing, Senior Counsel V Giri, appearing for the AIADMK, argued that the MLAs submitted their resignations on May 25 and that the resignations were accepted on the very same day, followed by the issuance of a Gazette notification. He further submitted that the legislators were admitted into the TVK on the same day, which, according to him, indicated possible horse-trading.
“There was an intention to give membership in the opposing party, which was manifested. This is what we call horse-trading. Resignation comes with the promise of many other things,” Giri submitted. He further argued that if the Speaker had conducted a proper enquiry, notice ought to have been issued to the AIADMK to enable the party to place its objections on record.
Advocate General Vijay Narayan, appearing for the State, contended that the Speaker’s role was limited to examining whether the resignation letter had been submitted voluntarily and whether it was genuine.
After hearing the submissions of both sides, the Bench adjourned the matter to June 29.