2423 Corruption Cases Pending Throughout TN: Madras High Court Asks State To Examine Setting Up Special Courts

Noting that 2423 cases were pending throughout the state of Tamil Nadu and an additional 61 cases were pending in Puducherry, Justice B Pugalendhi has asked the state government to consult with the High Court with respect to setting up special courts considering district-wise pendency, and take appropriate steps for the same.

“In respect of the districts where exclusive Special Courts under the Prevention of Corruption Act are not functioning, the Government, in consultation with the High Court, shall examine the necessity of establishing such exclusive Special Courts, taking into account the district-wise pendency and workload of cases, and take appropriate steps wherever warranted,” the court said.

The court also directed the state to extend all necessary cooperation to the High Court administration in providing the required infrastructure, supporting staff and other facilities for effective functioning of the existing Special Courts.

The court asked the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, in coordination with the Director of Prosecution to ensure that adequate prosecuting personnel are made available to the existing Special Courts and any additional Special Courts that may be designated, to ensure that the trial is not delayed for want of prosecuting officers.

Further, the court directed the Principal District and Sessions Judges dealing with corruption cases to give it due priority and make every endeavour to conduct the trial on a day-to-day basis and conclude them within the period contemplated under Section 4(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court also added that whenever the statutory period is exceeded, reasons should be recorded in compliance with the provision.

It may be noted that as per Section 4(4) of the Act, the trial in offences under the PC Act should be conducted on a day-to-day basis and endeavour should be made to ensure that the trial is concluded within 2 years.

The court was hearing a petition filed by a man accused in a corruption case, seeking expeditious disposal of the proceedings against him. The petitioner argued that even though charges were framed against him in 2023, only 2 witnesses had been examined in the past 3 years. Citing Section 4(4) of the PC Act, he sought to conclude the trial within a stipulated time.

The State informed the court that the case was originally being dealt with by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi, and it was later transferred to the Principal District and Sessions Court in light of an administrative order of the High Court. It was submitted that 80 cases were pending before the court and the present case, being transferred to the court in 2025, will be dealt with expeditiously.

The court noted that the administrative order for transfer of cases to the cadre of Principal District and Sessions Judge came in the light of enactment of the BNSS, which removed the cadre of Assistant Sessions Judge. The court, however, noted that as per Section 3 of the Act, a Special Judge may be appointed from among persons who are or have been Sessions Judges or Additional Sessions Judges.

The court thus opined that the Prevention of Corruption Act cases could be entrusted to the Additional District and Sessions Judges for time-bound disposal of cases.

The court held that the purpose of the Act was to eradicate corruption in public administration by ensuring effective investigation, speedy trial and deterrent punishment of corruption offences. The court observed that the pendency of such a huge number of cases was not a workload that could be handled by the Principal District and Sessions Judge alone, who would be entrusted with other substantial judicial and administrative responsibilities.

“This Court is conscious of the fact that the Principal District and Sessions Judges are entrusted with substantial judicial and administrative responsibilities in their respective districts. In addition to the regular criminal and civil work, they are also required to attend to administrative matters concerning the subordinate judiciary. Entrusting the entire workload of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act to them, without making any corresponding arrangement for distribution of such cases, would place an avoidable burden on the said Courts,” the court said.

The court emphasised that corruption cases affect public administration and integrity of public services. It remarked that prolonged pendency of corruption cases neither serve public interest not advance the interest of the accused.

“Corruption cases involve allegations affecting public administration and the integrity of public services. Prolonged pendency of such cases neither serves the public interest nor does it advance the interests of the accused. While the prosecution is entitled to a fair opportunity to establish its case, the accused is equally entitled to have the proceedings concluded within a reasonable time,” the court said.

The court, however, also pointed out that merely issuing directions to the trial court to dispose of cases would not serve the mandate of the Act, and it was important to organise the judicial establishments to ensure that the courts entrusted with the trial have sufficient time and resources to comply with the mandate.

Noting that the state also has a corresponding responsibility to provide necessary infrastructure, staff and prosecuting personnel, the court issued the directions.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. L. Shaji Chellan

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. A. Robinson Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. S. Sivasubramanian Government Advocate (Civil Side), Mr. D. Venkatesh