"Let FIR Be Investigated’: Supreme Court Rejects Plea Seeking CBI Probe Into AIADMK MLAs’ Exit To Join TVK

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a writ petition seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into allegations of horse-trading involving former All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) MLAs who resigned and joined Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay-led Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK).

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana heard the petition filed by M Srinivasan.

During the hearing, Justice Bagchi observed that an MLA resigning from the Assembly to join another political party was an issue that political parties could address, adding that there was “nothing criminal” about the act of resignation itself.

When the petitioner's counsel pointed out that an FIR had already been registered in the matter, Justice Bagchi responded: “Then let the FIR be investigated. Law will take its own course.”

The petition sought directions to the CBI to register an FIR against TVK general secretary N Anand, also known as Bussy N Anand, and former AIADMK MLAs K Maragatham Kumaravel, S Jayakumar, P Sathyabama and E Subaya, alias Esakki Subaya, over allegations of horse-trading to secure a majority for the TVK government in the Tamil Nadu Assembly.

The petitioner also sought framing rules to prevent post-election horse-trading involving legislators who resign without justifiable reasons or face disqualification proceedings.

Further, the plea sought recovery of election expenditure from the legislators who resigned and directions requiring certain former MLAs to deposit the expenses of the resulting by-elections. It also sought to restrain four former legislators from contesting the by-elections until appropriate rules were framed.

The Madras High Court recently upheld the Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker's acceptance of the resignations of six former AIADMK MLAs while directing the Speaker to conclude pending disqualification proceedings against four of them within two months.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan held that the resignations were genuine and that the Speaker was not expected to conduct a detailed inquiry into the reasons behind the legislators’ decision to resign.

However, the Court clarified that acceptance of the resignations would not bring the pending disqualification proceedings against the legislators to an end. It directed the Speaker to complete those proceedings within two months. The Court partly allowed a petition filed by AIADMK whip Agri Krishnamurthy challenging the Speaker’s decision to accept the resignations.

The dispute arose from allegations that certain AIADMK legislators had defied the party whip by voting in favour of the TVK government during a confidence motion before subsequently resigning and joining the ruling party.

AIADMK whip Agri Krishnamurthy and National People’s Power Party leader Ravi approached the High Court challenging the orders accepting the legislators’ resignations. The petitioners questioned the manner in which the resignations had been accepted, contending that the Speaker had not conducted a meaningful inquiry into whether they were voluntary. They also referred to allegations of horse-trading and argued that the circumstances surrounding the resignations warranted closer scrutiny.

Opposing the challenge, the Speaker maintained that he had personally interacted with the legislators before accepting their resignations and was satisfied that they had acted voluntarily. The Assembly Secretary argued that the petitions were based on an incorrect understanding of the legal consequences of resignation. It was submitted that a legislator’s resignation did not erase the consequences of conduct that could attract disqualification under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.

Accordingly, accepting a resignation could not, by itself, extinguish or render infructuous disqualification proceedings arising from alleged defection. The Speaker argued that Article 190(3)(b) required the Speaker to examine the genuineness of a resignation rather than investigate the political motives behind it.

Background: AIADMK MLAs Backed TVK Government

The dispute followed the Tamil Nadu Assembly election results declared on May 4, 2026, in which the TVK emerged as the party with the highest number of votes but fell short of the majority required to form the government on its own. The TVK, led by Vijay, subsequently secured support from other parties and formed the government. A confidence motion was held in the Assembly on May 13, with the government securing 144 votes in its favour.

According to the AIADMK, the party had issued a whip on May 11 directing its legislators to oppose the confidence motion. However, 25 MLAs allegedly voted in favour of the TVK government, contrary to the party’s direction, prompting disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule on May 14. Some proceedings against legislators were later dropped after they apologised for their conduct, according to the material placed before the Court.

The legislators whose resignations are at issue subsequently tendered their resignations on May 25 and joined the TVK. By-elections were also held in Maduranthakam and Dharapuram after Maragatham Kumaravel and P Sathyabhama resigned and joined the TVK. Both contested on TVK tickets and retained their seats.

Case Title: M. SRINIVASAN Vs THE UNION OF INDIA

Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Mohana

Hearing Date: October 26, 2026