Advocates:
A.V.RANGAM, C.S.VAIDYANATHAN, K.K.VENUGOPAL, K.R.CHAUDHARY, N.A.SUBRAMANIAM, R.B.DATAR, R.N.SACH, S.N.KACKAR, SHANTA VENUGOPAL, V.P.Raman, VINA DEVI KHANNA

M Karunanidhi's contentions in the case primarily revolved around the classification and status of the Chief Minister and other Ministers as public servants under the relevant laws. He argued that:

1. The office of the Chief Minister is a constitutional position that is independent of the legislative and executive branches, and therefore, should not be considered a public servant within the meaning of the applicable statutes (!) .

2. The remuneration and duties of the Chief Minister are determined by constitutional provisions and are not solely governed by statutory definitions, which might exclude such constitutional office-holders from being classified as public servants (!) .

3. The legislative provisions at the state level, which seek to classify public officials, do not automatically extend to include constitutional office-holders like the Chief Minister, as their status is fundamentally different from that of ordinary public servants (!) .

4. The laws enacted at the state level, particularly those relating to investigation and prosecution of public misconduct, should not be interpreted as infringing upon the constitutional independence and privileges of the office of the Chief Minister and Ministers (!) .

5. There is a need to interpret the statutes in a manner that respects the constitutional hierarchy, ensuring that the classification of the Chief Minister as a public servant does not undermine the constitutional scheme of governance and the functional independence of constitutional offices (!) .

6. The State legislation creating additional offences and procedures should operate in harmony with central laws, and should not be construed as creating conflicts that would diminish the constitutional immunity or independence of the office of the Chief Minister (!) .

In essence, M Karunanidhi contended that the constitutional office of the Chief Minister should not be equated with ordinary public servants for legal and procedural purposes, emphasizing the constitutional distinctions and the importance of maintaining the constitutional balance of powers.