Plea in Madras High Court challenges CM Vijay’s decision to appoint his astrologer as OSD

A plea has been filed before the Madras High Court challenging the appointment of astrologer Rickey Radhan Pandit Vettrivel as Officer on Special Duty to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay [Rathi Vs State of Tamil Nadu].

The plea was mentioned for urgent listing today before a Vacation Bench of Justices Victoria Gowri and N Senthilkumar, and is expected to be heard tomorrow.

The petitioner, R Rathi, a practising lawyer, has sought a writ of quo warranto against Vettrivel, questioning the authority under which he holds the post of Officer on Special Duty to the Chief Minister (Political).

A writ of quo warranto is issued to require a person holding a public office to show the legal authority under which they occupy that office.

Rathi's plea recounts that Vettrivel is an astrologer who had predicted that Vijay's party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) would emerge as a major political force, that he would win the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections and become the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.

The plea goes on to contend that Vettrivel was appointed as OSD only as a reward for his astrological contribution.

“The appointment has been made as a reward for his astrological contribution, which is highly illegal, without the authority of law, unconstitutional,” the petition states.

The petitioner has, therefore, challenged proceedings dated May 12, 2026, issued by the Public Department of the Tamil Nadu government appointing Vettrivel to the post with effect from the date of joining.

The petitioner has alleged that the appointment was made without inviting applications, without framing service rules, without issuing any recruitment notification and without conducting any selection process.

According to the plea, such an appointment violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law and equal opportunity in public employment.

The petitioner has relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, which held that public appointments must conform to the constitutional scheme and cannot be made through backdoor methods.

The petitioner has further argued that the appointment order was copied to the Pay and Accounts Office and the Accountant General, which shows that the post is a public appointment paid out of public funds.

On this basis, the plea contends that the post required lawful creation, sanction, budgetary allocation, scale of pay, eligibility criteria and a prescribed method of recruitment.

The petitioner has also alleged that the order was issued merely on the basis of an office note from the Chief Minister’s office and on political considerations.

The plea states that the terms and conditions of appointment were not mentioned in the order, allegedly to avoid legal complications and a possible challenge before court.

The petitioner has sought a declaration that Vettrivel’s appointment is unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary and void.

She has sought quashing of the May 12 appointment proceedings and an interim injunction restraining Vettrivel from continuing as Officer on Special Duty to the Chief Minister during the pendency of the case.