Supreme Court Rejects Plea Seeking CBI Probe Into TVK Trust Vote: “Vague, Wild”

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a petition seeking a CBI probe into alleged corruption surrounding a trust vote won by Vijay’s TVK in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and a direction to impose the President’s Rule in the state until the investigation is completed.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana dismissed the plea, observing that it was based on “vague, wild and casual allegations without any reliable material on record”.

The petition filed by Madurai resident KK Ramesh said that the TVK emerged as the single-largest party in the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections. It, however, didn’t have sufficient numbers to form a stable government in the Assembly, he alleged.

Tamil Nadu has 234 Assembly seats, and any party or alliance requires the support of at least 118 MLAs to form the government. Vijay secured the support of 144 MLAs and won the trust vote on May 13.

Per the plea, TVK had only 108 seats and was short of the majority mark before securing support from other parties and factions. TVK received support from Congress, CPI, CPI(M), VCK, IUML, a faction of rebel AIADMK legislators and the lone AMMK MLA.

Also read: “Scattered Opinion”: Top Court Halts High Courts’ Transgender Law Proceedings

The petitioner alleged that MLAs from other parties were involved in horse-trading and that “huge amounts of money” were allegedly handed over to certain MLAs by TVK.

Advocate CR Jaya Sukin, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the political leaders were switching sides either under pressure or due to monetary considerations.

“In this country, party leaders are either indulging in corruption by giving bribes, or threatening that family members will be hurt if they don’t join the party,” Sukin said.

CJI Kant asked which State the petitioner was referring to. “Which ruling party? In your State, parties keep changing,” CJI Kant said.

In response, Sukin said it was happening across different States.

“One state in East India and one in Middle India, party leaders are joining other parties…Speaker must be investigated…Speakers call the media…they take it and accept the letter, and within minutes, they join another party. This is destroying democracy,” he said.

However, the court was not convinced and dismissed the plea. It also described the petitioner as a “serial petitioner” during the hearing.

The petition alleged that large sums of money were distributed to legislators from other parties and that promises of government contracts were made in exchange for support during the trust vote.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate C.R. Jaya Sukin argued that the issue went beyond Tamil Nadu and reflected a broader pattern in Indian politics.

Also read: Walking On Demarcated Footpaths A Fundamental Right: Supreme Court

“This is a serious issue. Ruling parties everywhere, in every state and at the Centre. We are not in a democratic country,” he told the bench.

The CJI then asked, “Which party are you talking about?”

Sukin replied that he was before the court only in relation to Tamil Nadu, but added that the court should be aware of developments elsewhere as well.

Urging the bench to intervene, the lawyer alleged that legislators were being transported in chartered flights and that defections were taking place in full public view.

“In this case, the Speaker called the media, and the MLAs came and submitted resolution letters in front of the media. The Speaker announced that it was accepted. Within minutes, they joined another party,” he said.

Alleging widespread “horse-trading”, Sukin claimed that ruling parties were undermining democracy through inducements and intimidation.

“First, they are giving money and bargaining with MPs and MLAs. If they don’t come, then they are threatened indirectly – that they and their children will be kept in jail for years, and their entire property will be seized. This court must interfere,” he submitted.

The bench, however, was not persuaded and declined to entertain the petition.