Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad held that the Chairman of the State Legislative Council does not enjoy constitutional immunity or unfettered discretion to keep a member’s resignation pending indefinitely and is confined to deciding within a reasonable time whether such resignation is voluntary and genuine. The case concerns a Council member who challenged the Chairman’s prolonged inaction on a resignation submitted in November 2024 and sought a direction to take a decision. Declaring the prolonged inaction illegal and arbitrary, the Court directed the Chairman to complete the limited inquiry into voluntariness and genuineness and to render and communicate a decision on the member’s resignation within four weeks.

The petitioner, Jayamangala Venkata Ramana, a Member of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council elected on 23.03.2023, submitted a resignation letter on 23.11.2024 addressed to the Chairman of the Council. He contended that the Chairman failed to act upon the resignation by neither accepting nor rejecting it for a prolonged period. The petitioner had handed his resignation to the Personal Secretary as the Chairman was unavailable. He subsequently challenged the prolonged inaction through the present writ petition filed on 13.08.2025, alleging violation of Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution and Rule 190 of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council Rules.

Also Read: Divorced Muslim Woman Entitled To Recover Cash And Gold Given To Husband At Marriage Under Section 3(1) Of Muslim Women (Protection Of Rights On Divorce) Act: Supreme Court

The petitioner argued that the Chairman’s discretion under Article 190(3)(b) is confined only to determining voluntariness and genuineness and that the extended delay amounted to arbitrariness. The respondents, including the Chairman, asserted that several resignations tendered during the post-election period required closer scrutiny, supported by a letter dated 07.07.2025 alleging possible inducements influencing resignations. The Chairman initiated an inquiry and scheduled personal interaction with the petitioner on 28.11.2025.

The respondents contended that judicial intervention into the intra-House inquiry was unwarranted. The dispute concerned whether prolonged pendency violated constitutional and statutory mandates requiring reasonable exercise of discretion.

The Court recorded that Article 190(3)(b) contains only a “limited discretion” permitting the Chairman to inquire “whether such resignation is voluntary or genuine” and held that “there is no ‘untrammelled discretion’ to the Chairman that is conferred by the Constitution”. It stated that Rule 190(2) prescribes that where a member personally appears and informs that the resignation is voluntary and genuine, and the Chairman has “no information or knowledge to the contrary”, the Chairman “may accept the resignation immediately.”

The Court recorded the facts that although the petitioner submitted his resignation on 23.11.2024, “the only question that falls for consideration is whether the Hon’ble Chairman… is justified in not rendering a decision within a reasonable time.”  Referring to the definition of reasonable time, the Court quoted: “That is a reasonable time that preserves to each party the rights and advantages he possesses and protects each party from losses that he ought not to suffer.”

The Court recorded authoritative principles that discretionary power cannot be absolute, citing: “Absolute discretion… is more destructive of freedom than any of man’s other inventions.”  It further stated: “It is settled law that either the provisions of the Constitution or the statute does not confer absolute discretion on any one, for absolute discretion is the anathema to Rule of Law.”

The Court noted that prolonged non-exercise of power itself may amount to abuse of discretion, recording: “Not exercising the powers vested which results in deprivation is also an abuse of power.”

Regarding Wednesbury principles, the Court stated that administrative unreasonableness includes instances where an authority “fails to direct itself properly in law… or considers matters irrelevant to what it has to consider.” The Court examined concerns raised by a letter asserting possible inducements behind multiple resignations. However, it recorded that such allegations could not justify indeterminate delay, stating the constitutional requirement of timely decision-making.

Ultimately, the Court observed that the Chairman’s inaction for nearly a year was “neither supported by Article 190(3)(b) nor by Rule 190”, and that the prolonged delay “violates the principles of reasonableness embedded in the Constitution.” (Derived strictly from reasoning portions; no editorial interpretation added.)

Also Read: Raising Superannuation Age Is Policy Decision Of State: AP High Court Dismisses AP Housing Corporation Employees’ Petitions Seeking Retirement At 62  

The Court recorded that “the inaction for the prolonged period on the part of the Hon’ble Chairman of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council is illegal and arbitrary and therefore is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The inquiry that is contemplated is required to be completed and to render the decision on the resignation of a Member within a reasonable time, preferably within a fortnight that may be stretched to a month at the most as contemplated in the Parliamentary Debates during the 33rd Constitutional Amendment.”

“There shall be a direction to the Hon’ble Chairman to complete the inquiry process and render a decision within four weeks from today, in accordance with law and communicate the same to the Writ Petitioner forthwith by taking into consideration the above discussion. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.”

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Petitioner: Sri K. Ajay Kumar, on behalf of Sri N. Ashwani Kumar

For the Respondents: Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, Advocate General;
Sri R. Satish Babu, Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri V. Venkata Saketh Roy.

Case Title: Jayamangala Venkata Ramana v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Neutral Citation: APHC010426242025
Case Number: WP No. 21941 of 2025
Bench: Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad