The Madras High Court on Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into allegations of corruption and horse-trading surrounding the resignation of 4 AIADMK legislators and their subsequent decision to join actor Vijay’s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK). [Ramkumar Adityan v. Secretary]
A Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan held that the petition was based on conjectures and suspicion, without any tangible material to support the allegations.
“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 said.
It added,
"While a sudden realignment of political loyalty by respondent Nos.12 to 15 may cause financial strain due to the necessities of conducting a bye-election, such political choices do not ipso facto translate into criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act, in the complete absence of proof of an unlawful quid pro quo."
The petition was filed by B Ramkumar Adityan, a practising advocate and member of the AIADMK. He sought a direction to the CBI to investigate alleged irregularities and corruption in the resignations of S Jeyakumar, P Sathyabama, K Maragatham Kumaravel and Dr E Subaya alias Esakki Subaya from the Assembly and their subsequent entry into TVK.
According to the petitioner, the legislators had won the April 23, 2026 Assembly elections as AIADMK candidates. TVK emerged as the single largest party with 108 seats, short of the majority mark of 118 in the 234-member House. The petitioner claimed that the 4 AIADMK MLAs later voted in favour of the TVK government during the floor test held on May 13, contrary to the party whip.
While disqualification proceedings were pending before the Speaker, the MLAs resigned on May 25 and 26. Their resignations were accepted by the Speaker, after which they joined TVK.
The petitioner alleged that the resignations could not have taken place so soon after the elections unless there was illicit gratification or promises of political office. He further argued that such “party-hopping” and “political horse-trading” amounted to a “murder of democracy” and would impose a burden of about ₹100 crore on the exchequer because of bye-elections.
The Court, however, said that an investigation by a specialised agency like the CBI could not be ordered merely on the subjective belief of a litigant.
"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."
It also noted that when it asked whether there were any documents to support the allegations, counsel for the petitioner referred only to Supreme Court judgments.
"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 stated.
Advocate S Sankar appeared for the petitioner.
Government Pleader K Kumaran appeared for the State authorities.
TVK and its ministers were represented by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi with Advocates KP Ananthakrishnan, Dixita Gohil, Pranjal Agarwal, Yash S Vijay, Pranav Gopalakrishnan, T Mahendhran and P Mohan, briefed by Gohil Agarwal Law Chambers.
[Read Judgment]