Madras High Court dismisses plea to order CBI probe into resignation of four MLAs

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

The View From India Looking at World Affairs from the Indian perspective.

First Day First Show News and reviews from the world of cinema and streaming.

Today's Cache Your download of the top 5 technology stories of the day.

Data Point Decoding the headlines with facts, figures, and numbers

Health Matters Ramya Kannan writes to you on getting to good health, and staying there

The Hindu On Books Books of the week, reviews, excerpts, new titles and features.

Aerial view of the Madras High Court at Chennai. File | Photo Credit: V. Ganesan

The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (June 16, 2026) dismissed a writ petition which sought a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into alleged corrupt practices behind the resignation of four AIADMK MLAs who had joined the ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) within minutes thereafter.

First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan said, the plea made by advocate B. Ramkumar Adityan of Tiruchendur could not be entertained when the entire edifice of his public interest litigation petition rests upon conjectures, suspicion and a total absence of foundational material facts to substantiate his allegations related to corrupt practices.

“A bare perusal of the asseverations made in the writ petition, styled as a public interest litigation, demonstrates that except making highly generalized, sweeping and vague allegations of corruption and financial inducement against the private respondents (the four former MLAs), the petitioner has not produced even an iota of tangible material before this court,” the Division Bench wrote.

Notices sent to four ex-MLAs for defying AIADMK whip during trust vote in Tamil Nadu Assembly

The judges said, it was a well-settled principle of constitutional and criminal jurisprudence that an investigation by a specialized agency such as the CBI could not be ordered as a matter of course, solely based on the subjective belief of a litigant. Pleadings in a public interest litigation targeting public dignitaries and elected representatives must possess a high degree of precision and should be backed by relevant material obtained upon research, and not based on speculative hypothesis

“The law is unambiguous that a fishing or roving enquiry cannot be directed by a constitutional court under Article 226 of the Constitution based on vague assertions. The extraordinary power to direct an investigation by the CBI is to be exercised