Fair and just: On Tamil Nadu Speakers, MLAs, disqualification proceedings

Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Speaker JCD Prabhakar followed democratic principles by deciding not to pursue disqualification proceedings against 21 AIADMK MLAs after party general secretary Edappadi K. Palaniswami condoned the actions of the rebel legislators. Defying their party whip, the MLAs supported the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK)-led government during the May 13 trust vote. Mr. Prabhakar also stood by his May 24 assurance that his eventual decision would prove his impartiality. In fact, 25 MLAs of the Dravidian major violated the party directive and favored the new regime, but four of them, including two legislators, subsequently resigned from their seats. This is why the Speaker’s action was against only 21 MLAs after he received letters from Mr. Palaniswami saying that he had condoned the violation of the party whip by dissidents. As the official group and the rebels reached a ceasefire on May 27, the AIADMK chief decided to approve the actions of the dissidents within 15 days from the date of such poll as prescribed in Tenth schedule and Tamil Nadu Assembly Disqualification Rules.

Despite Mr. Prabhakar’s track record as a non-controversial politician, many wondered whether he would act fairly given that Mr. Palaniswami and his colleagues are political opponents of TVK. In addition, Tamil Nadu has not been spared the unfortunate tendency of Assembly Speakers to act in a partisan manner. PH Pandian, who served as Speaker from 1985 to 1989, even said that the presiding officer of the Assembly had “high powers”. The discretionary powers enshrined in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution dealing with defection have been used by Speakers in various states for the wrong reasons. By staying the proceedings against 21 dissidents, Mr. Prabhakar vindicated constitutional morality. However, he was to initiate disqualification proceedings against four others before accepting their resignations. The Assembly Secretariat also duly announced that vacancies had arisen in the four constituencies, after which the election authorities advised the district election officers to appoint returning officers. Mr. Prabhakar rightly relied on Mr. Palaniswami’s submission where only the names of 21 MLAs were mentioned and decided to take up the matter against the other four. However, this will be purely technical in nature as the bar is only on disqualified members who become ministers before being re-elected. While Mr. Prabhakar’s next course of action is awaited, it is a healthy sign that he has so far demonstrated integrity in dealing with disqualification applications.

Published – 12 Jun 2026 0:10 AM IST