Madras High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking CBI Probe Into Resignation of Four AIADMK MLAs

The Madras High Court in Chennai on Tuesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the resignation of four AIADMK MLAs who subsequently joined the ruling TVK.

The first bench, comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan, asserted that a CBI investigation cannot be ordered as a matter of course based solely on the subjective belief of a litigant.

The court observed that while a sudden realignment of political loyalty by legislators may cause financial strain due to the necessities of conducting a bye-election, such political choices do not automatically translate into criminal misconduct. The bench noted that there was a complete absence of proof showing an unlawful quid pro quo under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The PIL was filed by B Ramkumar Adityan. He argued that the MLAs had spent substantial sums of money, up to the statutory ceiling limit of Rs 40 lakh, for their election campaigns.

According to the petitioner, the legislators would not realistically have treated their legislative positions as trivial and surrendered them within days of taking their oaths unless they were induced by illicit gratification or promises of executive or remunerative political office.

However, the High Court refused to concur with these arguments. The judges stated that pleadings in a PIL targeting public dignitaries and elected representatives must possess a high degree of precision. They added that such claims should be backed by relevant material obtained through research, rather than speculative hypotheses.

When the court raised a specific query during the hearing as to whether there were any documents to support the assertions made in the plea, the petitioner only sought to refer to certain decisions of the Supreme Court.

The bench concluded that legal precedents and judgments serve as authorities for the propositions of law they decide. The judges emphasized that these precedents do not serve as a substitute for the foundational facts that a petitioner is bound to establish within the four corners of their pleadings.