The Madras High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the resignation of four All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) legislators and their subsequent induction into Chief Minister Vijay’s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK).
The Division Bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan held on Tuesday that a sudden shift in political allegiance did not constitute an offence by itself under the Prevention of Corruption Act in the absence of evidence of an unlawful quid pro quo.
The Court observed that the petition was founded on assumptions, conjectures and suspicion, without any foundational facts or tangible material to substantiate allegations of corruption, horse-trading or illegal gratification.
It further noted that although a sudden political realignment may result in financial implications for the state due to the conduct of by-elections, such political decisions cannot automatically be treated as criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act unless supported by evidence establishing an unlawful exchange of benefits.
The Bench noted that there was no material on record indicating that the four legislators had resigned in return for any monetary consideration, political office, or other illegal inducement.
The PIL was filed by Advocate and AIADMK member B Ramkumar Adityan, seeking a direction for a CBI investigation into the circumstances surrounding the resignation of AIADMK MLAs S Jeyakumar, P Sathyabama, K Maragatham Kumaravel and Dr E Subaya alias Esakki Subaya and their subsequent entry into TVK.
The petitioner contended that the legislators had been elected on AIADMK tickets in the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections, the results of which were declared on May 4, 2026. Although TVK emerged as the single largest party with 108 seats, it fell short of the majority mark of 118 seats in the 234-member Assembly and subsequently secured support from other parties to form the government. A confidence motion held on May 13 resulted in the TVK government receiving 144 votes in its favour.
According to the petitioner, certain AIADMK legislators, including the four MLAs in question, voted in favour of the TVK government despite the party whip issued by AIADMK. Disqualification proceedings were thereafter initiated against those legislators for allegedly violating the party mandate. However, before those proceedings could conclude, the four MLAs tendered their resignations on May 25 and 26, which were accepted by the Speaker. They subsequently joined TVK.
The petitioner alleged that the sequence of events indicated political horse-trading aimed at increasing TVK’s legislative strength. It was argued that such conduct amounted to a direct assault on democratic principles and would impose a financial burden of nearly Rs 100 crore on the public exchequer due to the necessity of conducting by-elections. Based on these allegations, complaints were submitted seeking a CBI probe.
Rejecting the plea, the High Court observed that apart from broad, sweeping and generalized allegations, the petition did not contain even an iota of credible material demonstrating corruption or illegal inducement. The Court noted that the resignations occurred merely ten days after the election results and were followed by the legislators joining the ruling party, but no evidence had been produced linking these events to any cognisable criminal offence.
The Bench further observed that the petition failed to disclose any details regarding alleged transactions, payments or sources of information supporting the accusations. It described the PIL as a classic example of a fishing and roving inquiry and held that constitutional courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot direct investigations by specialised agencies such as the CBI solely on the basis of suspicion or speculative allegations.
The Court also noted that when queried about documentary material supporting the allegations, the petitioner relied primarily on judicial precedents. The Bench clarified that legal judgments cannot substitute the requirement of establishing foundational facts through pleadings and evidence.
Holding that extraordinary constitutional powers to order a CBI investigation can be exercised only when a prima facie cognisable offence is disclosed through credible evidentiary material, the Court concluded that no such case had been made out. Accordingly, the PIL was dismissed.
The post Madras High Court rejects plea seeking CBI probe into induction of former AIADMK MLAs into TVK appeared first on India Legal.