The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the trust vote held in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly on May 13, ruling that the allegations presented before it lacked credible supporting evidence. The court observed that serious accusations involving constitutional processes cannot be entertained on the basis of unsubstantiated claims.

A two-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana rejected the plea filed by K. K. Ramesh under Article 32 of the Constitution. The bench described the petition as being founded on “vague, wild and casual allegations” and noted that no material evidence had been placed on record to substantiate the claims. The court declined to issue any directions and dismissed the matter at the preliminary stage.

In its observations, the apex court stressed the importance of maintaining a factual foundation when questioning constitutional or legislative processes. The judges noted that allegations of corruption or irregularities in legislative proceedings must be supported by concrete evidence before judicial intervention can be considered. The court's decision effectively brought an end to the challenge against the validity of the trust vote.

Also Read: Supreme Court Calls For Strong Nationwide Protection Of Forests In Jharkhand Case Ruling

Ramesh had sought a CBI investigation into alleged irregularities and corruption surrounding the floor test conducted in the Tamil Nadu Assembly. In addition to a probe, the petitioner also requested the imposition of President’s Rule in the state until the completion of the investigation. The plea alleged that the trust vote had been influenced through improper means and was not conducted in accordance with democratic norms.

The controversy relates to the trust vote held on May 13, in which the TVK government secured victory with the support of 25 rebel AIADMK legislators after members of the DMK staged a walkout from the Assembly. The government maintained that the outcome demonstrated its majority in the 234-member House and affirmed its constitutional legitimacy to continue in office.

In his petition, Ramesh alleged that large sums of money had been distributed to legislators to secure support for the government and claimed that some MLAs were offered lucrative government contracts in exchange for their backing. However, the Supreme Court found that these accusations were unsupported by evidence and insufficient to warrant a judicially monitored investigation. The ruling underscores the court’s position that allegations concerning elected institutions and constitutional procedures must be backed by verifiable facts rather than speculation or conjecture.

Also Read: Supreme Court Holds Employees Responsible For Updating Address In Service Matters