“Let the FIR be investigated,” the Supreme Court said as it turned away a writ petition against the AIADMK MLAs’ resignations; the alleged horse-trading is a matter for the ordinary course of law.
New Delhi: Declining to entertain a challenge to the AIADMK MLAs’ resignations, the Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a writ petition against former AIADMK legislators who crossed over to the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) after the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections, observing that the allegations of inducement are for the investigating agency and the criminal court [Writ petition challenging the resignations of former AIADMK MLAs].
The matter was heard by a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana. The allegations of horse-trading and inducement are those of the petitioner’s counsel, are untested, and the Court has expressed no view on their merits.
The Bench’s answer
In the Bench’s observation, an elected representative who resigns a legislative seat and takes up ministerial office is doing something that forms part of the ordinary political process. It therefore declined to entertain the challenge in constitutional jurisdiction, keeping writ remedies apart from criminal investigation. Justice Bagchi said, while dismissing the petition:
Let the FIR be investigated. Law will take its course.
The petitioner’s case
Invoking the Court’s extraordinary writ jurisdiction, counsel for the petitioner argued that the Tenth Schedule, the anti-defection law, has a constitutional vacuum: legislators can escape disqualification by resigning tactically under Article 190(3)(b) and then secure ministerial posts in the ruling government.
Counsel pointed to an FIR on alleged horse-trading and inducement connected with the crossover, and submitted that the resignations should not be viewed in isolation.
The Madras High Court ruling behind the petition
The petition followed a ruling of the Madras High Court, where a Division Bench of Chief Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan dismissed a petition by AIADMK Whip Agri S.S. Krishnamurthy against the Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker’s quick acceptance of the resignations of six MLAs. The six had defied the party whip during a confidence motion that supported the Vijay-led TVK government, and resigned soon after.
That Court held that resignation and disqualification run on separate constitutional tracks, and that accepting a resignation does not make pending Tenth Schedule proceedings infructuous. It directed the Speaker to decide the disqualification petitions on their merits within two months.
What the dismissal leaves where it was
The anti-defection questions stay where the Madras High Court placed them: the Speaker is to decide the disqualification petitions on their merits. The Supreme Court has not stepped in to create a remedy for resignations that the petitioner calls tactical, and the argument about a gap in the Tenth Schedule was not accepted at this stage in writ jurisdiction.
As for the inducement allegations, the Court has left them to the FIR. They remain untested, no court has made a finding on them, and the respondents’ position has not been reported.
Case Title: Writ petition challenging the resignations of former AIADMK MLAs who joined the TVK (case title and number not reported)
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 26, 2026