NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea against six AIADMK MLAs who voluntarily resigned from their seats after voting against the party whip and subsequently joined the ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK).

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana rejected a plea filed by advocate K Suthan challenging a Madras High Court order dismissing his plea.

"Somebody resigns and becomes minister, it's part of political process," the bench said while rejecting the plea.

The high court on September 24 dismissed the PIL seeking framing of an "Election Expenditure Security" mechanism and five-year disqualification of the six AIADMK defectors, observing that the right to resign a legislative assembly seat is a facet of the constitutional scheme and cannot be burdened with extra-statutory conditions by judicial order.

The petition had sought a direction to the Election Commission and the Tamil Nadu Chief Electoral Officer to frame an "Election Expenditure Security" mechanism under which a sitting MLA who resigns voluntarily from a seat and later wants to contest the by-election necessitated by the resignation, must first deposit an amount equal to the public money spent on holding the by-election.

The Madras High Court on October 13 upheld the decision of Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker JCD Prabhakar accepting the resignations of six AIADMK MLAs, who later joined the ruling TVK.

The high court had directed the speaker to decide on the petition from AIADMK whip Krishamurthy seeking disqualification of S Jayakumar, Maragatham Kumaravel, P Sathyabama and Esakki Subaya from the assembly within two months.

S Jayakumar, Maragatham Kumaravel and P Sathyabama, elected from Perundurai, Madurantakam and Dharapuram assembly constituencies, respectively, resigned as members on May 25, 2026.

Esakki Subaya, elected from the Ambasamudram constituency, resigned the following day. C Vijayabhaskar (Viralimalai) and M R Vijayabhaskar (Karur) resigned on June 16 and 29, respectively.

All of them had been elected on AIADMK tickets in the April Tamil Nadu assembly polls.

After resigning, they joined the ruling TVK led by Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay.

Maragatham Kumaravel and Sathyabama won the bypolls -- as TVK candidates -- held on October 6 for the Madurantakam and Dharapuram assembly segments, respectively.

The bench passed the order on the petition by Krishnamurthy, besides a PIL plea filed by Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi.

The bench said the resignations tendered by the MLAs were genuine and voluntary, and in keeping with provisions under the 10th Schedule of the Constitution.

The speaker was not required to undertake a roving or detailed inquiry into the alleged motives behind them. Accordingly, their acceptance and the consequential declaration of vacancies were constitutionally valid, the bench said.

It said the AIADMK's whip was defied by 25 MLAs on May 13, in pursuance of which, immediately, disqualification proceedings were instituted by the AIADMK before the speaker.

However, the petitions were withdrawn unconditionally against 14 MLAs, including C Vijay Bhaskar and M R Vijay Bhaskar.

The bench said pendency of a plea seeking disqualification did not constitutionally bar the speaker from accepting the resignations, as resignation and disqualification are distinct constitutional processes.

The speaker was, therefore, competent to accept the resignations notwithstanding the pending petition seeking disqualification, the bench added.

The bench said the acceptance of resignations does not render the pending disqualification proceedings infructuous.

The speaker shall still finally adjudicate and decide on the plea seeking disqualification.

The bench said the high court possesses the power under Article 226 to intervene where the speaker fails to decide on the disqualification plea within a reasonable period of time.

"In the peculiar circumstances, a time-bound mandamus is being issued directing the speaker to conclude the disqualification proceedings finally within a period of two months," the Madras High Court had said in its order.