Follow TNM’s WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
The Madras High Court on Friday, July 17, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the alleged attempt to bribe a ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) MLA. The court held that there were no exceptional circumstances warranting the transfer of the investigation from the state police.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that transferring an investigation to the CBI is an extraordinary measure, reserved for cases where the local investigation is shown to be compromised, paralysed, or incapable of uncovering the truth.
“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 Bench said. It added that the petitioner’s allegation that the police had failed to register complaints made by opposition legislators was “unsubstantiated” and could not justify transferring the probe to the CBI.
The PIL was filed by Tiruppur-based advocate J Balasubramani following allegations by TVK MLA N Elaiyaraja that he was offered Rs 35 crore to vote against Assembly Speaker JCD Prabhakar in a proposed no-confidence motion.
The Triplicane police registered a First Information Report (FIR) after the complaint was lodged using his MLA hostel address in Chennai. The MLA also alleged that he and his family were threatened after he refused the offer and submitted screenshots of WhatsApp call records with his complaint.
The court also said that the petitioner had relied on media reports and social media content to argue that similar “horse trading” complaints by opposition MLAs were being ignored by the police.
“We must emphasise 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 newspaper headlines or viral videos on digital platforms,” the Bench observed.
During the hearing, the court questioned what extraordinary circumstances existed to justify a CBI probe when the complaint had already been registered, the investigation was underway, and arrests had been made.
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior advocate N Jothi argued that the investigation lacked neutrality. He contended that while the police had swiftly acted on the TVK MLA’s complaint, they had failed to register cases based on complaints made by five opposition politicians alleging similar “horse trading” attempts.
Jothi also argued that two of the nine arrested persons had informed the magistrate that they were pressured to name politicians during the investigation. He further questioned why the FIR was registered at the Triplicane police station instead of the Uthangarai police station, where the MLA represents the constituency, or moved to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC).
The petitioner said that transferring the investigation to an independent agency was necessary to ensure a fair, impartial probe into allegations of attempts to bribe, threaten or influence elected representatives.
Opposing the plea, Advocate General Vijay Narayan submitted that the case did not warrant a CBI investigation as the state police had already taken effective steps in the investigation.
He told the court that so far nine persons had been arrested, material evidence including audio and video recordings had been collected and the accused had been remanded in judicial custody.
The Advocate General also described the PIL as proxy litigation, arguing that those who alleged discrimination in the registration of complaints should themselves approach the court if they were affected.
Accepting the state's submissions, the Bench observed that the PIL was intended to protect the rights of the vulnerable and uphold the rule of law and not to seek extraordinary relief based on unverified media reports.