Supreme Court of India declined to entertain a petition seeking an inquiry into allegations of financial impropriety based on two audio clips that surfaced online. The clips allegedly feature remarks made by Tamil Nadu's Information Technology Minister, Palanivel Thiaga Rajan, concerning the assets of Chief Minister MK Stalin's family.

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, questioned the validity of entertaining a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution on the grounds of hearsay and the reliance on mere "audio clips." The Chief Justice criticized the petition as "bogus" and cautioned against using the court as a political forum.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the audio clips contained substantial claims, including a reference to a significant amount of money being spent, totaling ₹30,000 crores. However, the court pressed for concrete and actionable evidence to warrant the establishment of a commission of inquiry.

The controversy stemmed from audio clips that were widely shared by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders, led by Tamil Nadu BJP Chief, K Annamalai, in April. Thiaga Rajan vehemently denied being the person featured in the clips, asserting that they were fake and fabricated.

The content of the audio clips reportedly includes comments about the wealth amassed by Chief Minister Stalin's son, Udhayanidhi Stalin, and son-in-law, Sabareesan. The second clip is said to criticize the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party's structure while praising the power structure within the BJP.

Notably, the release of these audio clips coincided with a cabinet reshuffle in May, wherein Thiaga Rajan was replaced as Finance Minister and instead appointed as the Minister for Information Technology and Digital Services.

In its decision, the Supreme Court advised the petitioner to seek remedies under criminal law and cautioned against exploiting the legal system for political purposes. This dismissal highlights the importance of presenting substantial evidence when seeking legal intervention on such matters.

The episode underscores the complex interplay between technology, politics, and the judiciary in the digital age, as well as the court's commitment to upholding the integrity of legal proceedings amidst public controversies.