Madras High Court Refuses CBI Probe Into Alleged Poaching Of Tamil Nadu MLAs, Says Newspaper Reports Can't Be Basis

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan held that transferring the investigation to the CBI was an extraordinary remedy reserved for exceptional circumstances. The court held that the investigation could be transferred only when the local investigation was paralyzed or compromised. In the present case, the court noted that there was nothing to show that the local police were acting in bad faith.

"In the present case, the petitioner has failed to point out a single exceptional circumstance that indicates that the local police are acting in bad faith or failing to collect evidence. The unsubstantiated claim made by the petitioner that five complaints sought to be filed by members of the opposition parties were not registered by the State Police cannot form the basis for transferring the ongoing probe to the CBI," the court observed.

The court added that the petitioner had relied heavily on newspaper reports to assert that horse-trading allegations by members of other political parties were being ignored. The court remarked that it could not transfer the investigation based on such newspaper headlines or viral videos on digital platforms. 

"The petitioner relies heavily on newspaper articles, press releases, and social media audio/video clippings to assert that "horse-trading" is happening and that other complaints are being ignored. We must emphasize that newspaper reports and social media broadcasts cannot form the basis for a court to order the transfer of a criminal investigation. A court of law cannot transfer a statutory investigation based on the newspaper headlines or viral videos on digital platforms," the court said.

The petitioner had argued that his plea was not intended for the benefit of any political party but to secure a fair, impartial, comprehensive and credible investigation into all allegations relating to attempts to bribe, threaten, induce or unlawfully influence elected members of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.

He argued that the investigation with respect to the recent complaints of horse trading had to be transferred to an independent agency to protect the integrity of the electoral mandate, uphold the rule of law, and restore public confidence in the administration of criminal justice.

The petitioner further submitted that preliminary enquiry into the TVK MLA's matter had commenced even before the complaint was received by the Inspector.

He also questioned the registration of the case at Triplicane Police Station instead of the Uthangarai police station, where the MLA resides. He added that registering the FIR at Triplicane police station, which is a regular police station with no specialised mandate for corruption investigation, instead of entrusting the matter to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, constitutes a deliberate departure from the established demarcation prescribed in the Tamil Nadu Vigilance Manual.

He also pointed out other instances where the MLAs belonging to other political parties had also come forward and disclosed that they were approached by other political parties, but in which no cases were registered or investigation carried out. He submitted that the facts, when taken together, will show the apparent disparity in investigative response.

He added that such failure to undertake an enquiry into complaints against persons associated with the ruling party will create a reasonable and objective apprehension that the investigation would not command public confidence. He thus sought to transfer entire investigations, with respect to allegations of horse trading in the State, to the CBI.

When the matter came up for hearing on Thursday, the bench asked the petitioner if there were any extraordinary circumstances that would justify the transfer of the investigation to the CBI.

“A complaint was lodged making allegations, it was registered, investigation done and persons arrested. What's the extraordinary circumstance in it?” the court asked.

To this, Senior Advocate N Jothi, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the averments made in the FIR were hard to believe. He submitted that out of the nine persons who have been arrested, two of the detainees had given letters to the Magistrate stating that they were compelled to give the names of politicians. It was argued that the police, instead of finding out the truth, were pressuring people to take names.

Jothi further submitted that 5 other politicians had come and complained that there were attempts to poach them, but no case was registered on such allegations. He thus argued that the police could not have a pick and choose attitude and had to be neutral.

“I'm about purity of politics. 5 politicians have come and complained that there was attempt to poach them. No case registered in that. There cannot be pick and choose. Police has to be neutral. Police is for everybody,” Jothi said.

Countering the submission, Advocate General Vijay Narayan submitted that the present case was a clear example of proxy litigation where the real persons were not coming before the court. He submitted that usually, a case is transferred to the CBI only when the local police has not been carrying out the investigation properly. However, in the present case, the local police was carrying on the investigation and trying to find out the truth. He further submitted that the present petitioner could not come to the court to say that there was discrimination and it was for those affected by such discrimination to come to court.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr N Jothi, Senior Advocate

Counsel for Respondents: Mr Vijay Narayan, Advocate General

Case Title: J Balasubramani v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 325

Case No: WP 28030 of 2026