Resigned from assembly membership due to disillusionment with AIADMK leadership: Esakki Subaya told Madras High Court

The opposition was filed in response to two writ petitions preferred by AIADMK Agri whip SS Krishnamurthy, who questioned Legislative Assembly Speaker JCD Prabhakar’s decision to accept the resignations of four MLAs. | Photo credit: FILE PHOTO

Former AIADMK MLA E. Subaya alias Esakki Subaya (62), now with TVK, told the Madras High Court on Monday (June 29, 2026) that his resignation from the Legislative Assembly was completely voluntary and also genuine and he took the decision due to utter disillusionment with the AIADMK leadership.

In a counter-affidavit filed before Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, he also said that the decision was borne out of his own conscience and was completely free from any form of external pressure, coercion, orchestration or monetary incentives from any party.

The opposition was filed in response to two writ petitions preferred by AIADMK Agri whip SS Krishnamurthy challenging the decision of Legislative Assembly Speaker JCD Prabhakar to accept the resignation of Mr. Subay and three other MLAs when disqualification proceedings were pending against them.

Mr. Subaya claimed that he was not aware of any meeting called by the AIADMK to elect its general secretary Edappadi K. Palaniswami as legislature party leader or Mr. Krishnamurthy as chief whip before Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay moved the motion for a trust vote on May 13, 2026.

Therefore, he claimed to have joined the majority of 25 out of 47 AIADMK MLAs in voting in favor of the motion. After the vote, he was stripped of all party posts, despite spending more than 20 years in the AIADMK and serving as an MLA twice, apart from a brief stint as law minister.

The former MLA also said that he came to know about the AIADMK by allegedly passing a resolution on 9 May 2026 electing Mr. Palaniswami as the Legislature Party Leader and Mr. Krishnamurthy as the Whip only after the initiation of disqualification proceedings against him at the party’s instigation.

“I categorically declare that I have never received any notice, invitation or intimation regarding this alleged meeting, nor have I participated in it, participated in it or agreed to it. Furthermore, the resolution is completely devoid of essential details such as place, programme, convening authority or minutes, which is completely outside the established official practice and procedure that the AIADMK consistently follows in recording valid party resolutions,” he said in his opposition.

He further stated: “It is essential that my signature is on the list. I declare that this signature may have been obtained from me for other purposes and was misused as if I had attended and voted at the meeting called on May 9, 2026. I declare that I have every reason to believe that my signature has been misused without my knowledge, authority or consent to falsely demonstrate a false consent to a false meeting.” that ever took place.”

The petitioner claimed that he received only two WhatsApp messages on May 11 and May 12 asking him to vote against the confidence motion without any credible evidence that such an instruction was given by the party general secretary through the whip.

Mr. Subaya further stated that he resigned as MLA on May 26, 2026 only after deep consideration and consultation with his supporters for almost 13 days and subsequently joined TVK to continue his public service and political journey.

It also pointed out to the court that the AIADMK condoned the act of 21 MLAs as they apologized to the party and decided to conduct disqualification proceedings against only four MLAs who resigned from their posts. “The selective prosecution and internal contradictions of a political party make its actions colorful,” he said.

“The writ petition relies entirely on impermissible and speculative media reports coupled with wild, sweeping allegations of ‘undue influence’ and ‘horse-trading’. Petitioner has not adduced a single piece of credible prima facie evidence to demonstrate an abuse of authority or to overcome the statutory presumption of administrative correctness,” the bench concluded.

Published – 29 Jun 2026 23:05 IST