The Supreme Court on Friday refused to interfere with the Madras High Court's dismissal of a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought to challenge the Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker's decision to drop disqualification proceedings against certain AIADMK MLAs who had voted against the party whip during a confidence motion in favour of Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay of the TVK party.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana refused to entertain the petition filed by one PV Selvakumar in the "peculiar facts and circumstances of the case." The bench clarified that it has left the questions of law open.

Court's Observations

During the hearing, the bench questioned the petitioner's locus standi.

The petitioner's counsel replied that the petitioner was not a member of the Assembly but was a member of AIADMK, who was aggrieved by the MLAs' conduct as a voter.

The Chief Justice noted that the petitioner did not belong to the political party in the relevant sense, while Justice Mohana observed that the party appeared to have condoned the action.

Justice Bagchi observed that to maintain proceeding under the tenth schedule, one needed to be a member.

"We are fully with you that sanctity of constitutional mandate must be preserved. but we must understand workings of democratic sytem," Justice Bagchi said. The counsel replied that democracy would be strengthened if a voter can pursue the disqualification action.

The bench however pointed out that the party appeared to have condoned the act of the defectors.

The court indicated it would have been more inclined to hear the matter if the party itself had taken a clear decision, and that any refusal by the Speaker to allow withdrawal of proceedings could have been agitated by the party.

The counsel insisted the issue was not limited to the whip and involved letters issued to the Speaker. The bench maintained that the grievance should properly be of the party and its authorised representatives.

"People don't have a say in the flip until next election," the counsel submitted.

Background

To recap, CM Vijay's TVK party emerged victorious with 108 votes in the 2026 State Legislative Assembly Elections. However, since the party was short of the required majority of 118 to form a government, they sought support from other political parties.

After forming the government, a confidence motion was held in the assembly floor on May 13, in which TVK secured 144 votes in its favor.

Soon after the declaration of results, the AIADMK party General Secretary, through the party whip Agri SS Krishnamurthy, had directed the members to vote against the TVK government. However, on the day of the confidence motion, 25 MLAs led by MLA SP Velumani and C Vijayabhaskar voted in favour of TVK, against the party whip. Since the MLAs voted against the party mandate, proceedings were initiated against them under the 10th Schedule on May 14, 2026.

Meanwhile, 4 MLAs - S Jayakumar, Maragatham Kumaravel, P Sathyabama, Dr Esakki Subbaya resigned from the party, which was accepted by the Speaker. During this time, Edappadi Palaniswamy submitted a letter to the Speaker to drop the disqualification proceedings against the remaining 21 MLAs. Following the party's decision to condone the MLAs, the Speaker accepted the letter and dropped the proceedings.

Following the condonation, two more AIADMK MLAs – C Vijayabhaskar and MR Vijayabhaskar resigned from the party. The acceptance of the resignation of the 6 MLAs was assailed before the High Court.

Subsequently, Advocate PV Selvakumar filed the underlying PIL challenging the dropping of disqualification proceedings against the remaining 21 MLAs. He argued that after voting against the party whip, the disqualification proceedings were initiated against the MLAs under Section 2(1) (a) and 2(1)(b) of the 10th Schedule of the Constitution, and all the concerned MLAs had lost their primary membership of the party by their conduct.

The petitioner thus argued that the party did not have the authority to pardon or withdraw the disqualification proceedings and the Speaker's acceptance of the request, without deciding the party's power to do so, is illegal and liable to be set aside.

He averred that once the disqualification proceedings were initiated, it involved the constitutional integrity of the House and not merely a private inter-party dispute. He also argued that the Speaker could not have dropped the proceedings merely because the party had changed its stance.

On the other hand, the State submitted that the matter concerned the political party and its member, and since the General Secretary of the Party had decided to pardon the MLA, they continued to remain members of the party and any third party could not challenge the same.

During the hearing, the High Court wondered how the petition could be maintained. It noted that the MLAs had not resigned from the party and the party had condoned them within the 15-day time period provided as per law. The Court wondered how a third party could challenge the decision. Eventually, the High Court dismissed the PIL.