SC rejects plea against six AIADMK MLAs over TVK switch

Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against Six Former AIADMK MLAs

The Supreme Court on Monday, October 26, 2026, dismissed a petition challenging the resignations of six former All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) MLAs who subsequently joined the ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) in Tamil Nadu.

A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana refused to interfere with the Madras High Court’s dismissal of the petition.

The bench observed that a legislator resigning from the Assembly and subsequently becoming a minister was part of the political process. The ruling is a setback for the petitioner, who had sought action against the former legislators over their resignations and subsequent political realignment.

Why Did the Six AIADMK MLAs Resign?

The controversy began after a group of AIADMK legislators voted against their party whip during a crucial confidence motion involving the government led by TVK chief and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay.

Six legislators subsequently resigned from the Assembly and joined TVK. Their resignations were accepted by Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker JCD Prabhakar.

The six former MLAs were:

• S Jayakumar

• K Maragatham Kumaravel

• P Sathyabama

• E Subaya, also known as Esakki Subaya

• C Vijayabhaskar

• M R Vijayabhaskar

The developments triggered legal challenges over whether the resignations could allow legislators to avoid the consequences of proceedings under the anti-defection law.

What Did the Petitioner Seek?

The petition, filed by M Srinivasan through advocate K Suthan, challenged the Madras High Court’s refusal to grant the requested relief.

The petitioner sought directions for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register an FIR against individuals allegedly involved in horse-trading connected with the legislators’ crossover. The allegations have not been established as findings against the people named.

The plea also sought a mechanism requiring legislators who voluntarily resign and subsequently contest by-elections to deposit an amount linked to the public expenditure incurred on those elections. It further sought restrictions on some former legislators contesting by-elections and proposed a five-year disqualification.

The Supreme Court declined to grant these requests.

‘Part of the Political Process’: Supreme Court’s Observation

During the hearing, the bench made it clear that it would not pass an order granting the relief sought by the petitioner.

The court’s observation that resigning from a legislative seat and later becoming a minister forms part of the political process reflected its reluctance to intervene in the dispute through the petition before it.

However, the dismissal should not be interpreted as a judicial finding that every allegation surrounding the legislators’ crossover was false or that no investigation could take place. The court indicated that an existing FIR should be investigated and that the law should take its course.

What Had the Madras High Court Ruled?

The Supreme Court’s decision followed earlier proceedings in the Madras High Court.

On October 13, the High Court upheld the Speaker’s acceptance of the six resignations, finding that the resignations had been treated as genuine and voluntary. It also clarified that accepting a resignation and deciding a disqualification petition are separate constitutional processes.

The High Court directed the Speaker to conclude the pending disqualification proceedings involving four of the former MLAs within two months.

The ruling meant that accepting the resignations did not automatically make the pending disqualification proceedings irrelevant. The Speaker was still required to decide those proceedings in accordance with the High Court’s directions.

What Is the Anti-Defection Law?

The anti-defection provisions are contained in the Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution. They provide a framework for disqualification of legislators in specified circumstances, including certain cases involving voting or abstaining contrary to a party direction.

The dispute in Tamil Nadu raised questions about the relationship between resignation and disqualification proceedings.

The Madras High Court treated the acceptance of resignations and the pending disqualification proceedings as distinct matters. The Supreme Court’s latest order declined to grant the broader relief sought in the separate petition challenging the resignations and seeking additional safeguards against alleged post-election horse-trading.

What Does the Verdict Mean for Vijay’s TVK Government?

The Supreme Court’s refusal to interfere provides immediate relief to the six former AIADMK legislators in relation to the petition before it.

The development also comes amid efforts by TVK to consolidate its position following the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections. The MLAs’ resignations and subsequent entry into TVK had triggered debate over political realignments, by-election costs and the effectiveness of existing anti-defection provisions.

However, the Supreme Court’s dismissal does not remove the need for any separate pending proceedings to be dealt with according to the applicable legal framework. The investigation into allegations covered by the existing FIR is also a separate matter.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the resignations of six former AIADMK MLAs who joined TVK.

• The bench was led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and included Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana.

• The legislators had voted against their party whip before resigning from the Tamil Nadu Assembly.

• The petitioner sought a CBI probe into alleged horse-trading, a five-year disqualification and an election-expenditure deposit mechanism.

• The Supreme Court declined to grant the requested relief.

• The court indicated that an existing FIR should be investigated according to law.

• The Madras High Court had upheld the acceptance of the resignations but directed the Speaker to decide pending disqualification proceedings involving four former MLAs within two months.

• The case has renewed debate over political realignments, resignation and the anti-defection law.

Bottom Line

The Supreme Court has refused to intervene in a petition challenging the resignations of six former AIADMK MLAs who later joined Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay’s TVK. While the court declined to impose the proposed disqualification and election-expenditure measures, it indicated that an existing FIR should be investigated according to law. The ruling highlights the distinction between political realignment, resignation and separate legal proceedings under the constitutional framework.