Supreme Court dismisses plea against Aiadmk MLAs joining TVK

Court rules resignations are part of political process

The bench clarified that these resignations are genuine and voluntary under the 10th Schedule of the Constitution. The Speaker is not required to conduct a detailed inquiry into the motives behind the resignations, the court ruled.

The court stated that the pendency of a disqualification plea does not prevent the Speaker from accepting resignations because these are distinct constitutional processes.

Madras High Court previously upheld Speaker’s decision

On October 13, the Madras High Court upheld the decision of Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker JCD Prabhakar to accept the resignations of the six AIADMK MLAs.

Earlier, on September 24, the court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation that sought a five-year disqualification for these defectors. This petition also proposed an Election Expenditure Security mechanism, requiring resigning MLAs to deposit an amount equal to public money spent on by-elections if they choose to contest them.

Timeline of MLA resignations and bypolls

S Jayakumar, Maragatham Kumaravel, and P Sathyabama resigned on May 25, 2026, while Esakki Subaya resigned on May 26, 2026.

C Vijayabhaskar and M R Vijayabhaskar submitted their resignations on June 16 and June 29, 2026, respectively. On October 6, Maragatham Kumaravel and Sathyabama won bypolls as TVK candidates for the Madurantakam and Dharapuram assembly segments.

Disqualification proceedings remain pending

The Speaker is still required to adjudicate the disqualification plea against S Jayakumar, Maragatham Kumaravel, P Sathyabama, and Esakki Subaya within two months. This mandate follows a time-bound order from the Madras High Court.

Initially, disqualification proceedings were instituted against 25 MLAs who defied the AIADMK whip on May 13. These petitions were later withdrawn unconditionally against 14 MLAs, including C Vijay Bhaskar and M R Vijay Bhaskar.

Bombay High Court to hear Imran Khan's plea on Tuesday

The Bombay High Court has scheduled a hearing for Tuesday at 3 pm on actor Imran Khan's challenge against a Leave India notice. The notice was issued by the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer following the actor's participation in anti-CEC protests earlier this month.

During a hearing on October 23, a division bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna noted that Solicitor General Tushar Mehta would appear for the state. Senior advocate Venkatesh Dhond, representing Khan, sought an adjournment in the post-lunch session, moving the hearing to Tuesday.

The Supreme Court has issued a notice to the Centre and the Election Commission of India regarding a separate plea against MLAs abandoning seats to shift loyalty at public expense.

Imran Khan challenges 'Leave India' notice

Imran Khan, a United States citizen and Overseas Citizen of India card holder, faces a mandatory departure deadline of October 28, 2026. The Foreigners Regional Registration Office issued a Leave India notice warning of potential prosecution under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 if he does not comply.

Khan has challenged this notice in court through his advocates Zulfikar Memon, Parvez Memon, and Chirag Naik. The petition contends the notice was issued in haste following complaints by political figures without evidence of wrongdoing.

Khan asserts he has not violated the Immigration and Foreigners Act or the Citizenship Act. The notice provided no reasons, supporting material, or specific statutory contravention for his departure. Authorities issued the directive without conducting an inquiry or providing a show-cause notice.

Khan is seeking urgent ad-interim relief to halt the implementation of the notice and aims for its final quashing.

Khan alleges illegal detention and lack of due process

Khan claims the Mumbai Police detained him illegally on October 10, 2026, near August Kranti Maidan. He asserts that no protests had commenced at that time, and he did not enter any restricted area or disobey police orders. Police drove him and his family around the city for nearly an hour before taking them to the Yellow Gate Police Station in South Mumbai. Officers released them at the station as they held no instructions to keep them in custody.

Following his release, police personnel intimidated a cab driver who subsequently refused to transport the family. Khan and his family were forced to walk to Bhendi Bazar to secure alternative transport home. The petition highlights that Khan has resided in India since the age of two and maintains deep familial, marital, and professional ties. He possesses no criminal antecedents, yet an FIR was lodged against him based on complaints from political leaders.

Within five days of the FIR, the Foreigners Regional Registration Office issued the Leave India notice without applying its mind, according to the petition. The filing argues the notice is a purely responsive measure issued without an independent, objective, or lawful assessment. Khan contends the directive ignores his Overseas Citizen of India status and bypasses necessary statutory safeguards under the Citizenship Act, 1955. He describes the expulsion order as arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional, necessitating immediate judicial intervention. The Bombay High Court has scheduled a hearing for this challenge on Tuesday at 3 pm.