The Madras High Court, on Tuesday, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) demanding a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry into allegations of corruption and horse-trading linked to the resignation of four AIADMK legislators who subsequently joined actor Vijay’s political party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK). The case, Ramkumar Adityan v. Secretary, was presented before the Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan.
Court’s Rationale
The Bench concluded that the petition relied on conjecture and suspicion without presenting substantial material evidence. “At the threshold, we must observe that the entire edifice of the writ petition rests upon conjectures, suspicion and a total absence of foundational material facts,” the Court remarked.
The Court further clarified that while the political shift by the legislators might instigate financial burdens due to potential bye-elections, such maneuvers do not inherently amount to criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act without clear evidence of unlawful quid pro quo.
Details of the Petition
The PIL was filed by B Ramkumar Adityan, an advocate and AIADMK member, who sought a directive for the CBI to probe the alleged irregularities surrounding the resignations of S Jeyakumar, P Sathyabama, K Maragatham Kumaravel, and Dr. E Subaya alias Esakki Subaya. These legislators had initially secured their positions as AIADMK candidates in the April 23, 2026 Assembly elections. TVK had emerged as the largest party with 108 seats, falling short of the 118 needed for a majority in the 234-member House.
Adityan argued that the four MLAs cast their votes in favor of the TVK government during a floor test on May 13, defying the AIADMK party whip. As disqualification proceedings were ongoing before the Speaker, the MLAs resigned on May 25 and 26, after which their resignations were promptly accepted, and they joined TVK.
More Read
The petitioner contended that the legislators’ swift resignations post-elections suggested illicit inducements or promises of political position. He claimed that such “party-hopping” and “political horse-trading” undermined democratic principles and would likely cost the state exchequer approximately ₹100 crore due to ensuing bye-elections.
Judicial Observations
The Court underscored that an investigation by a specialized agency like the CBI cannot be initiated based solely on a litigant’s subjective belief. “The law is unambiguous that a fishing or roving enquiry cannot be directed by a constitutional court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India based on vague assertions,” the Bench stated.
In its deliberations, the Court noted that when asked for supporting documents, the petitioner’s counsel referred only to Supreme Court judgments, which the Court emphasized cannot replace foundational facts required in a petition. “In our considered opinion, judgments and legal precedents are authorities for the propositions of law they decide and they do not serve as a substitute for the foundational facts that a petitioner is bound to establish within the four corners of his pleadings,” the order declared.
Appearing for the petitioner was Advocate S Sankar, while Government Pleader K Kumaran represented the State authorities. TVK and its ministers were represented by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, along with Advocates KP Ananthakrishnan, Dixita Gohil, Pranjal Agarwal, Yash S Vijay, Pranav Gopalakrishnan, T Mahendhran, and P Mohan, briefed by Gohil Agarwal Law Chambers.
