Political realignment doesn’t amount to criminal misconduct: Madras HC

POlitical realignment, howsoever disconnected, does non amount to crook misconduct in the absence seizure of grounds, the Madras High Court held on Tuesday, as it dismissed a plea seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the resignation of four All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) legislators and their subsequent induction into the ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK).A bench of chief justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and justice G Arul Murugan said that a CBI probe can be ordered only in exceptional cases supported by evidence of a prima facie offence, and not on the basis of vague allegations or suspicion.The bench dismissed the public interest litigation (PIL) filed by advocate B Ramkumar Adityan, who had sought a CBI probe into the circumstances surrounding the resignation of four AIADMK legislators — S Jeyakumar, P Sathyabama, K Maragatham Kumaravel and Dr E Subaya — and their subsequent joining of the TVK.The PIL had also sought criminal action under the Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging political horse-trading. The court, however, held the allegations “entirely misconceived, devoid of specific factual details, and legally unsustainable.”“While a sudden realignment of political loyalty by respondent Nos.12 to 15 (the four MLAs) may cause financial strain due to the necessities of conducting a bye-election, such political choices do not ipso facto (by that very fact) translate into criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act, in the complete absence of proof of an unlawful quid pro quo,” the bench held.According to the petitioner, the TVK emerged as the single largest party in the April 23 Tamil Nadu assembly elections with 108 seats but fell short of a majority in the 234-member house. During the confidence vote on May 13, the four legislators allegedly voted in favour of the C Jospeh Vijay-led TVK government going against the party whip.The AIADMK leadership sought disqualification proceedings against the four. But before those proceedings could conclude, the four MLAs resigned from the assembly on May 25 and 26. The speaker accepted their resignations and the legislators subsequently joined the ruling TVK.The petitioner alleged that the MLAs would not have resigned so soon after contesting elections unless they had received “monetary inducements” or promises of office.The bench, however, said that the petition rested entirely on suspicion and conjecture. It noted that the petitioner had made “highly generalised, sweeping and vague allegations” without producing any material to support claims of corruption.Holding that the PIL was legally unsustainable and devoid of factual foundation, the court declined to order a CBI probe and dismissed the petition.Meanwhile, in separate proceedings related to the same issue, the TVK government told the high court that it was committed to taking the disqualification proceedings against the four former AIADMK legislators to their “logical conclusion.”Advocate general Vijay Narayan told the bench led by chief justice Dharmadhikari that the AIADMK had originally sought the disqualification of 25 MLAs for allegedly defying the party whip during the confidence vote, but later condoned the conduct of 21 legislators. Proceedings continued only against the four MLAs, who subsequently quit the AIADMK, resigned from the assembly and joined the TVK.Narayan said that assembly Speaker JCD Prabhakar accepted their resignations in accordance with Supreme Court rulings after satisfying himself that the resignations were voluntary and genuine. The law officer made the oral submissions on a petition filed by ML Ravi, president of Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi, challenging the speaker’s decision to accept the resignations.AIADMK leader Agri SS Krishnamurthy has also moved the high court challenging the speaker’s decision and seeking to restrain the Election Commission from conducting by-elections to the four constituencies — Perundurai, Madurantakam, Dharapuram and Ambasamudram — vacated by the four former MLAs.Both petitions contend that accepting the resignations while disqualification proceedings were pending enabled the legislators to circumvent the anti-defection law. The court will hear the pleas filed by Ravi and Krishnamurthy on Wednesday.