Taint of defection is not vaporised by resignation, Supreme Court had said in a judgment

📌 Summary:

• Article revisits Shrimanth Balasaheb Patel vs Speaker, Karnataka Assembly (2019) — Supreme Court''s landmark anti-defection judgment — to answer the live Tamil Nadu question: can a Speaker accept the resignation of MLAs while disqualification petitions against them are pending?

• Trigger: Tamil Nadu Speaker J.C.D. Prabhakar accepted resignations of 4 AIADMK MLAs who had voted in favour of the TVK government in a confidence motion; they then joined the ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK); AIADMK had sought their disqualification

• Backdrop case (Karnataka 2019): MLAs from JD(S)-Congress coalition acted against party whip; on realising they may be disqualified under 10th Schedule, submitted resignations; Karnataka Speaker did NOT accept immediately and disqualified them

• Supreme Court''s three conclusions in the Karnataka case (binding precedent for the TN question): (1) Speaker''s role on resignation is LIMITED — only ascertain if resignation is "voluntary" (free will) and "genuine" (authentic); cannot delve into motive. "Once it is demonstrated that a member is willing to resign out of his free will, the Speaker has no option but to accept the resignation." (2) Taint of disqualification does NOT "vaporise" merely by resignation submitted prior to adjudication — defection relates back to date when member incurred disqualification; resignation does NOT render pending or impending disqualification action infructuous (3) Disqualification has a SECOND consequence beyond loss of membership: the Constitution bars a disqualified member from holding a Minister''s post or any remunerative political office until end of term OR until re-elected; cannot join Ministry formed by defection without facing election/byelection

• Other rulings in the Karnataka case: SC upheld disqualifications BUT set aside the Speaker''s order that they would remain disqualified for the remainder of the Assembly''s term

• Court also held: "It is constitutionally impermissible for the Speaker to take into account any extraneous factors while considering the resignation. The satisfaction of the Speaker is subject to judicial review."

🎯 UPSC Relevance: GS2 (Polity — 10th Schedule, Anti-Defection Law, Speaker''s discretion, judicial review of Speaker''s decisions, fundamentals of representative democracy)

📝 Prelims Facts:

• Shrimanth Balasaheb Patel vs Speaker, Karnataka Assembly — Supreme Court judgment, 2019
• 10th Schedule: introduced by 52nd Constitution Amendment Act, 1985
• Constitutional bar on disqualified member: cannot hold Minister''s post or remunerative political office until end of term or re-election
• Article 191 — disqualifications for membership of State Legislature
• Speaker''s decision on resignation: must be "voluntary" + "genuine"; subject to judicial review
• TVK = Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (currently the ruling party in Tamil Nadu per article context)
• Tamil Nadu Speaker: J.C.D. Prabhakar

🔑 Key Term: "Relating back" doctrine in anti-defection — Defection is treated as having occurred at the moment the member''s conduct triggered disqualification (e.g., voting against whip, joining another party). Subsequent resignation cannot retroactively erase the defection — the "taint" travels with the member.