The political realignment, however sudden, does not amount to criminal misconduct in the absence of evidence, the Madras High Court on Tuesday held, as it rejected a plea 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 the ruling Tamilaga Vetri Kazhagam (TVK).
A bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan said a CBI investigation can be ordered only in exceptional cases supported by evidence of a prima facie offence, and not on the basis of vague allegations or suspicions.
The bench dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by advocate P Ramkumar Adityan, who sought a CBI probe into the circumstances surrounding the resignation of four AIADMK legislators – S Jeyakumar, P Satyabama, K Maragatham Kumaravel and Dr E Subbaiya – and their subsequent joining of TVK.
The PIL also sought criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging political bargaining. However, the court considered that these allegations were “entirely false, devoid of specific factual details, and cannot be supported from a legal standpoint.”
“Although the sudden realignment of political allegiance by Respondents Nos. 12 to 15 (the four MLAs) may cause financial stress due to the exigencies of holding by-elections, such political choices do not translate de facto (by this very fact) into criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act, in the complete absence of evidence of illegal quid pro quo.”
According to the petitioner, TVK emerged as the single largest party in the April 23 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections by winning 108 seats, but fell short of a majority in the 234-member Assembly. During the vote of confidence on May 13, the four legislators allegedly voted for the C Joseph Vijay-led TVK government against the party whip.
The AIADMK leadership sought disqualification action against the four. But before these procedures were completed, the four representatives resigned from the Council on May 25 and 26. The Speaker of Parliament accepted their resignations, and the lawmakers subsequently joined the ruling TVK party.
The petitioner alleged that the MLAs would not have tendered their resignations so quickly after contesting the elections unless they had received “financial inducements” or promises of holding office.
But the court said the petition was based entirely on doubts and conjecture. It noted that the petitioner made “very general, comprehensive and vague allegations” without providing any material to support his allegations of corruption.
Since the PIL was legally unsustainable and devoid of any factual basis, the court refused to order an investigation into the CBI and dismissed the petition.
Meanwhile, in separate proceedings related to the same issue, the TVK government has told the Supreme Court that it is committed to bringing the disqualification proceedings of the four former AIADMK legislators to its “logical conclusion”.
Solicitor General Vijay Narayan told the bench headed by Chief Justice Dharmadhikari that the AIADMK originally sought disqualification of 25 MLAs for allegedly defying the party whip during the confidence vote, but later condoned the conduct of 21 legislators. Actions continued only against the four MLAs, who then left the AIADMK, resigned from the Assembly and joined TVK.
Narayan said that the association’s president, J C D Prabhakar, accepted their resignations in accordance with the Supreme Court rulings after ensuring that the resignations were voluntary and genuine. The Legal Officer presented the oral arguments on the petition filed by ML Ravi, Chairman, Disiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi, challenging the Speaker’s decision to accept the resignations.
AIADMK Agri leader SS Krishnamurthy also moved the Supreme Court challenging the Speaker’s decision and seeking to restrain the Election Commission from holding by-elections to the four constituencies — Perundurai, Madurantakam, Dharapuram and Ambasamudram — vacated by the previous four MLAs.
Both petitions assert that accepting resignations while disqualification proceedings were pending enabled lawmakers to circumvent the anti-defection law. The court will hear the petitions filed by Ravi and Krishnamurthy on Wednesday.
