Jayalalithaa Death: Madras HC Quashes Arumughaswamy Commission Recommendation For Inquiry Against Former Health Minister Vijayabhaskar
The Madras High Court has quashed the report of Justice A Arumughaswamy Commission of Inquiry with respect to former Tamil Nadu Health Minister C Vijayabhaskar citing irregularities in the report. The court primarily noted that Vijabhayaskar, who was initially called by the commission as a witness, was not given an opportunity to present his case after finding materials against...
The Madras High Court has quashed the report of Justice A Arumughaswamy Commission of Inquiry with respect to former Tamil Nadu Health Minister C Vijayabhaskar citing irregularities in the report. The court primarily noted that Vijabhayaskar, who was initially called by the commission as a witness, was not given an opportunity to present his case after finding materials against him.
The Arumughaswamy Commission was appointed in 2016 to inquire into the suspicious circumstances surrounding the demise of former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, J Jayalalithaa including the circumstances that led to her hospitalization, the treatment provided to her, etc.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed that Vijayabhaskar was not given an opportunity of hearing or to cross-examine the witnesses as contemplated under Sections 8B and 8C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952. Thus, the court held that the commission's conclusion ordering appropriate action to be initiated against Vijayabhaskar could not be sustained and was thus liable to be quashed. The court had previously stayed the recommendations against Vijayabhaskar.
“Though all the respondents before the Commission were given opportunity of hearing and also to cross examine the witnesses, the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing and also to cross examine the witnesses as contemplated under Sections 8B and 8C of the Act, 1952 which is mandatory in nature. The petitioner was not arrayed as a respondent and only two witnesses were arrayed as respondents,” the court said.
Vijayabhaskar had approached the court challenging the observations made in the inquiry report against him. He submitted that the findings and observations of the Commission's report had prejudicially affected his reputation and caused serious prejudice in the minds of the people. He pointed out that as per the mandatory statutory provisions under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952 and the Commissions of Inquiry (Central) Rules 1972, in order to proceed against the a person whose reputation was likely to be affected, a notice had to be mandatorily issued which was not done in the present case. He thus argued that the commission's conclusion to proceed against him could not be sustained.
Countering the petition, the State argued that the petition was not maintainable. The state contended that since Vijayabhaskar was a sitting MLA and former Minister, the case had to be dealt with by the Special Bench constituted exclusively for dealing with cases against MPs and MLAs. It was also submitted that the petition is premature since no action had been taken till date based on the commission's report. It was submitted that the commission's report is only a suggestion and Vijayabhaskar did not require any audience before the commission.
The court however noted that there was a clear statutory violation and violation of principles of natural justice. The court noted that Vijayabhaskar was not issued any notice, and was also not supplied with the materials being used against him. The court added that the failure to comply with the statutory provisions and the principles of natural justice will render the actions and consequences thereof non est in law.
The court also rejected the argument that the petition is premature. The court noted that there was no need to wait till a decision was taken by the Government on the commission report. The court added that it was open for Vijayabhaskar to approach the court in the sole ground that principles of natural justice were violated.
Thus, the court allowed the plea and ordered accordingly.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. N. Nithyaesh Natraj for Mr. Vaibhav R. Venkatesh
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Veera Kathiravan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr. D. Gandhi Raj Special Government Pleader
Case Title: Dr. C. Vijayabaskar v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 18
Case No: W.P(MD)No.4379 of 2023