Supreme Court notice to Centre, ECI on plea against MLAs ‘abandoning’ seats to shift loyalty at public expense

The Supreme Court has begun examining whether legislators can resign after changing party allegiance and then return through by-elections at public expense. A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant issued formal notice. This asks the Union government and other respondents to respond to the petition. It does not decide whether the petitioner is correct.

The notice followed an appeal by advocate K. Suthan against a Madras High Court judgment. That judgment had dismissed his challenge to the resignations and party switches of AIADMK MLAs, including S. Jayakumar, to the ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam. The Supreme Court also notified election and Assembly authorities and six former MLAs.

The case is therefore still pending at the stage described. The respondents, including the Centre, Election Commission, Tamil Nadu Chief Electoral Officer, Assembly Secretary and former MLAs, have an opportunity to present their positions. Any final ruling would come later.

The case concerns six former AIADMK MLAs and six constituencies. The article names S. Jayakumar, Maragatham Kumaravel, P. Sathyabama, E. Subbaiya, M.R. Vijayabaskar and C. Vijayabaskar. Their resignations created vacancies in the seats they had won and represented.

The MLAs had voted on a confidence motion against their party whip. Disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule were then filed and remained pending before the Speaker. The MLAs resigned, and their resignations were accepted on the same day. They were also accepted into the ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam, or TVK.

The petition says the former MLAs from Dharapuram and Madurantakam were announced as TVK candidates for the very seats they had vacated. The article describes the resulting by-election as a costly repeat poll, while the other four constituencies are included among the six affected seats.

The Tenth Schedule is the constitutional provision commonly called the anti-defection law. Its purpose is to prevent elected legislators from changing political allegiance in ways that undermine the party mandate or stable government. It can apply when a member voluntarily gives up party membership or votes, or abstains, against the party’s direction without the required permission or later protection.

The article says AIADMK members voted on a confidence motion against their party whip. Petitions seeking their disqualification were filed under the Tenth Schedule and were pending before the Speaker. Before those petitions were decided, the members resigned their seats and joined the ruling TVK.

The legal question is whether resignation can interrupt that process. The petitioner argues that a member should not be able to avoid a possible disqualification by leaving the seat first. The Supreme Court has issued notice, but has not yet settled that argument in this case.

A disqualification petition under the Tenth Schedule concerns a legislator while that person remains a member of the Assembly. The petitioner argues that resignation changes the situation before the Speaker reaches a decision. Once the resignation is accepted, the member leaves the seat and may argue that the disqualification process no longer has the same practical target.

The alleged sequence was clear: AIADMK MLAs voted against the party whip, faced disqualification petitions, resigned before the Speaker decided them, and had their resignations accepted the same day. They then joined the ruling TVK. The petition says this achieves through resignation what the anti-defection law would prevent directly.

The former members could then seek a fresh mandate in a by-election. The article says candidates from Dharapuram and Madurantakam were announced for the same seats they had vacated. Whether this route legally defeats the Tenth Schedule is now before the Supreme Court; the Court has issued notice, not a final decision.

When an MLA resigns soon after election, the constituency’s elected representative leaves before the term ends. The article says the six constituencies lost their voices during the Budget session because their MLAs had quit. Voters therefore faced a break in representation, even though they had recently chosen those members.

A vacancy can lead to a by-election. The petition calls this a “luxury election” when it is created deliberately rather than by death, disability or legal compulsion. It says the electorate is made to pay twice for the same seat, while the member who caused the vacancy bears no cost. The article specifically mentions Dharapuram and Madurantakam candidates returning under the ruling party’s banner.

The financial burden falls on the public exchequer. The petitioner also links representation to consent over public spending. In the 2026 hung Assembly, the concern is larger because every seat can affect government support. The Supreme Court’s response may clarify how such resignations should be treated.

The Speaker is central to the anti-defection process because petitions seeking disqualification under the Tenth Schedule were pending before that office. The article also says the resignations were accepted on the same day. The case raises whether that sequence can prevent a Speaker from deciding the pending petitions.

The Election Commission of India and Tamil Nadu Chief Electoral Officer are responsible parties in the Supreme Court proceedings, while the Secretary of the State Legislative Assembly is also notified. Their involvement reflects the election and Assembly machinery affected by vacancies and possible by-elections. Political parties issue whips, receive members who change allegiance and nominate candidates. Here, AIADMK issued the relevant whip, while TVK accepted the former MLAs.

Courts examine challenges to these actions. The Madras High Court dismissed Mr. Suthan’s petition, and he appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has now sought responses from all key authorities and the six former MLAs. It has not yet ruled on the legality of the arrangement.

An Assembly seat is formally occupied by the person elected to it, not owned as private property by the voters. That is why a member can submit a resignation and, once accepted, leave the seat vacant. The article’s legal dispute concerns what follows when that power is used after a party switch and amid a pending disqualification case.

Politically, however, the seat carries the mandate of the constituency. The petition says voters give their only voice in governance through a vote intended to last for a full five-year term. It argues that abandoning the seat within weeks to change sides breaks the trust supporting representative democracy. The voters’ chosen representative is then absent during the vacancy.

This difference explains the wider constitutional concern. A resignation may be legally available to the member, yet its timing can affect representation, public spending and the anti-defection system. The Supreme Court must consider those competing claims after hearing the Centre and other respondents. The article records no final ruling.