Madras High Court Stays TVK MLA Poaching Bid Case Probe, Seeks Response On Plea Seeking CBI Probe
The Madras High Court has stayed the investigation into alleged attempt to poach an MLA belonging to the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan has ordered the interim stay on a plea seeking to transfer the investigation of the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The court has ordered an interim stay till the next date of hearing.
“The further proceedings and the investigation in Crime No.205 of 2026 on the file of D-1 Triplicane Police Station, Chennai, shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing,” the court said.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Sethuraj, an accused in the case, challenging the validity of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also seeking to transfer the investigation to the CBI to ensure a fair, independent and credible investigation.
Sethuraj, who is the 10th accused in the case, argued that his arrest was in violation of established procedure. He alleged that he was forcibly picked up by the police while he was staying at a hotel and had restrained him without authority. It was submitted that he was later taken to another hotel where the police served him a notice under Section 35 of the BNS, portraying as if he was staying in that hotel. Sethuraj also submitted that his statement was taken at night while under continuous illegal restraint and obtained under threats of roping his son in the FIR.
Sethuraj also submitted that he was forced to take names of Senthil Balaji, his brother and others, and his signatures were obtained without disclosing the contents of the alleged confession statements. He thus argued that the entire investigation was tainted and out of political vendetta.
Sethuraj submitted that the political atmosphere in which the case has been registered makes it constitutionally impossible for the State police to investigate the present case impartially. The petitioner said that the investigating officer is a law-and-order officer directly subordinate to the State police, which is under the administrative control of the TVK government.
The petitioner also argued that the State police is under the administrative control of the TVK Government and is attempting to target their political rivals through the present plea. It was argued that an investigation by an agency that is institutionally subordinate to the very ruling party whose political interests are directly at stake in the outcome of the investigation cannot meet the constitutional standards of fairness guaranteed by Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
With respect to the validity of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the petitioner submitted that the Section operates by an express non-obstante clause which refers to the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was argued that the CrPC itself has been wholly repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, through which the Parliament has strengthened the safeguards against arbitrary arrest.
The petitioner pointed out that, as per Section 17 of the PC Act, an authorised inspector can arrest without warrant and without a Magistrate's order, which is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. He argued that Section 17 of the PC Act is also against the mandate prescribed under Section 35 of the BNSS, which states that an officer cannot arrest an accused without subjective and objective satisfaction.
The petitioner submitted that Section 17 of the PC Act has not been amended post-BNSS and, as a consequence, continues to operate with a non-obstante clause against a statute that no longer exists in law. He thus argued that the Section is inconsistent with and repugnant to the BNSS framework and thereby unconstitutional, to the extent it purports to derogate from BNSS.
When the matter came up for hearing on Tuesday, the bench directed it to be listed along with another plea filed by an accused in the case. The court also ordered an interim stay on the entire investigation into the case and ordered notice to the respondents.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. P. S. Raman Senior Counsel for Mr. Gautam S. Raman, Mr. V. Raghavachari Senior Counsel for Ms. S. Pavithra Sankar
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. A. Kumaraguru Sr. Panel Counsel, Mr. K. Kumaran Addl Govt Pleader, Mr. Arun Anbumani Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr. P. Siddharthan Spl. Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases
Case Title: Sethuraj v The Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 364
Case No: WP Crl 1928 of 2026