Madras High Court refuses to accept AIADMK MLA's plea to withdraw resignation

The Madras High Court refused to accept an additional affidavit filed by resigned AIADMK MLA Esakki Subaya informing that he had written to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Speaker requesting withdrawal of his resignation.

The first Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan declined to take the document on record after oral arguments had begun in a batch of petitions challenging the Speaker's acceptance of six AIADMK MLAs' resignations. "We will not take anything (on record) because the matter is already part heard," Chief Justice Dharmadhikari said.

Representation to Speaker Cites Lack of Constituency Representation

In his additional affidavit, Subaya stated he had submitted a representation to Speaker J.C.D. Prabhakar on August 29, 2026, expressing his willingness to withdraw his May 26, 2026 resignation letter. The former Ambasamudram MLA cited prolonged absence of representation for his constituency due to multiple pending litigations.

Subaya pointed to three separate legal proceedings delaying the byelection: the present writ petition by AIADMK whip Agri S.S. Krishnamurthy challenging the Speaker's acceptance of the resignations, a public interest litigation petition against conduct of bypolls to five constituencies including Ambasamudram that resulted in an interim order restraining the Election Commission from notifying byelections, and an election petition against his own victory in the general elections.

"Due to continuous delays and protracted litigation, the electorate has been deprived of democratic representation in the Legislative Assembly, causing severe prejudice to local governance, public welfare schemes, and developmental works," his affidavit read.

Request for Resumption of Duties

In his August 29 letter, Subaya requested the Speaker to either permit him to resume duties as an elected member subject to the final outcome of pending judicial proceedings, or alternatively, to allow withdrawal of his resignation and restore his membership in the Legislative Assembly. He said the representation was made "purely in larger public interest and to protect the rights of the electorate".

The affidavit reiterated that his resignation was voluntary and genuine, and that the Speaker had validly accepted it within constitutional powers.

Senior counsel S.R. Rajagopal told the court that Subaya's counsel had suddenly served the additional affidavit on him when the case was listed for hearing. After hearing arguments from counsel representing the petitioner, Speaker, Assembly Secretary and three resigned MLAs, the Bench reserved orders.

Source: The Hindu