Newdelhi,Oct 9, 2026 19:16 ISTThe Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea challenging the Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker's decision to drop disqualification proceedings against 21 AIADMK MLAs who had backed the TVK government during a confidence motion in defiance of the party whip. A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant declined to interfere with the Madras High Court order that had earlier dismissed the public interest litigation filed by P V Selvakumar.
At the same time, the bench clarified that it was leaving larger legal questions open for examination in a more suitable case. Throughout the hearing, the court raised concerns regarding Selvakumar's legal standing to pursue the matter, noting that he was neither a legislator nor an authorized representative qualified to press for disqualification actions under anti-defection laws.
Advocate Nina Nariman, representing Selvakumar, argued that her client was an AIADMK member and a voter deeply concerned by the conduct of the lawmakers. However, Justice Joymalya Bagchi emphasized that proceedings under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution must be driven by a member of the legislative house to preserve the proper functioning of a democratic system.
The bench also highlighted that the AIADMK leadership appeared to have pardoned the actions of the legislators, suggesting that any formal grievance should rightfully come from the party itself or its designated representatives. Nariman contended that the issue extended beyond a simple party whip violation and involved official communications sent to the Speaker.
The controversy originated when 25 AIADMK MLAs voted in support of the TVK government led by Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay during a confidence motion on May 13, defying party directives to vote against it. Disqualification proceedings were initiated the following day, but the party subsequently requested the withdrawal of the action against 21 of the MLAs, a request the Speaker accepted after four other legislators resigned from the party.
Selvakumar had challenged this outcome by arguing that the Speaker lacked the authority to drop the proceedings merely because the party altered its stance, maintaining that defying a whip carries definite constitutional consequences. With the Supreme Court declining the plea, the Madras High Court's dismissal of the PIL stands, upholding the view that an external petitioner lacks the authority to question internal party condonation of lawmaker conduct.