Supreme Court refuses to reopen disqualification case against 21 AIADMK MLAs

The Supreme Court on 9 October declined to hear a challenge to the Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker’s decision to drop disqualification proceedings against 21 AIADMK MLAs. The MLAs had voted for the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) government in a confidence motion, against their party’s whip.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana refused to interfere with the Madras High Court’s dismissal of a public interest petition filed by P.V. Selvakumar. It left the questions of law open, to be considered in an appropriate proceeding.

How the case began

The TVK won 108 seats in the 2026 Assembly election, short of the 118 needed for a majority. In the confidence motion on 13 May, the government of Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay received 144 votes. Twenty-five AIADMK MLAs, led by S.P. Velumani and C. Vijayabaskar, voted for it despite a whip directing them to vote against.

AIADMK general secretary Edappadi K. Palaniswami sought the disqualification of all 25 under the Tenth Schedule, the anti-defection law, and proceedings began on 14 May. Four of the 25 later resigned from the AIADMK and joined the TVK. For the other 21, Palaniswami wrote to the Speaker pardoning their conduct. Speaker J.C.D. Prabhakar accepted the letters and dropped the proceedings on 9 June.

The 21 AIADMK MLAs case

1. 13 May 202625 AIADMK MLAs vote for the TVK government in the confidence motion, against the party whip.
2. 14 May 2026Disqualification proceedings begin under the Tenth Schedule.
3. 9 Jun 2026Speaker J.C.D. Prabhakar drops proceedings against 21 MLAs after the party pardons them.
4. 18 Aug 2026Madras High Court dismisses P.V. Selvakumar's public interest petition.
5. 9 Oct 2026Supreme Court declines to interfere and leaves the questions of law open.

What the petitioner argued

Selvakumar, who said he was an AIADMK member and a voter, argued that a party cannot pardon legislators who defy its whip and so shut down a disqualification case. In the High Court he argued that the Speaker’s acceptance of the pardon was a constitutional farce.

In the Supreme Court, his counsel Nina Nariman argued that once the Speaker had admitted the disqualification petition, he should have taken it to its logical end, and that the MLAs had clearly defected by voting against the whip. She cited an earlier Supreme Court ruling that allowed relief to a third party when all of a party’s legislators had defected, while accepting that only some had done so here.

The state, through Advocate General Vijay Narayan, had argued in the High Court that this was a matter between a party and its own members, which an outsider could not challenge.

What the courts said

The High Court bench of Chief Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan dismissed the petition on 18 August, noting that the party had condoned the MLAs within the 15 days the law allows. “They have not resigned. The petitioner is a third party,” the bench observed.

In the Supreme Court, Justice Bagchi said proceedings under the Tenth Schedule must be pursued by a member of the House. “We are fully with you that the sanctity of constitutional mandate must be preserved,” he said. The bench noted that the AIADMK leadership appeared to have condoned the MLAs’ conduct and said: “They continue to be in AIADMK.”

We have a multi-party system. One can say I prefer party C to be in power than party B.

The bench added, “If the party had made an application, we could appreciate,” and told the petitioner’s side that “it appears you are at best an opportunistic interloper”, or “at best a conscientious person adhering to minority philosophy”.

What stays open

Because the bench left the law open, the court has not decided whether a party’s pardon can end defection proceedings once a Speaker has taken them up. That question can return if a party or a member of the House brings it before a court.