Click the Play button to listen to article

The Madras High Court, on Friday (August 28), orally remarked that Ministers are not above the law and they are expected to appear before courts where cases are pending against them. 

Justice V Lakshminarayanan directed the Tamil Nadu Finance Minister Marie Wilson to appear before the Judicial Magistrate in Puducherry in connection with an assault case pending against him.

The court directed the Minister's counsel to inform, by afternoon, the date on which the Minister was willing to appear before the Magistrate and passed over the hearing to the post-noon session.

The court orally remarked that Wilson could not remain absent before the court and had to appear before the judge. It recollected that PV Narasimha Rao had appeared before the court even when he was holding the office of the Prime Minister of the country. The judge thus orally remarked that Ministers are not above the law and had to appear before the court.

"When Narasimha Rao was the Prime Minister of the country, he appeared in court. You're just a Minister, Finance Minister of the State. Let us not give an impression that a Minister is above the law," the judge orally remarked.

The court was hearing a petition filed by the Minister seeking to quash a criminal case lodged against him for allegedly assaulting his sister-in-law. The case is pending before the Judicial Magistrate in Puducherry. 

Since the parties involved in the case belonged to the same family, the court had initially suggested mediation. However, when the parties informed the court that mediation talks failed, the court decided to hear the matter on merits.

The case against the Minister was lodged by the Puducherry Lawpet Police Station for offences under Sections 448, 427, 324, 506(i), 294(b) read with Section 34 of IPC. It was alleged that the Minister and his father had trespassed into the house of the sister-in-law, abused and assaulted her and her husband (the Minister's brother) with a wooden log, causing injuries, and had criminally intimidated them. It was alleged that the assault arose out of a dispute relating to the adoption and upbringing of a minor child.

When the matter was taken up today, Wilson's counsel informed the court that the prosecution had filed a subsequent charge-sheet before the Magistrate. It was also submitted that the subsequent chargesheet had not been made available to him, despite filing of copy applications, which were rejected.

To this, the court orally remarked that the chargesheet might not have been served since Wilson was not appearing before the court.

"You're not going to the court. How will they give you a copy?" the court asked.

The court stressed that the Minister should appear before the court and asked the Minister's counsel to ask him to appear before the court on August 31st, when the case was proposed to be taken up by the Magistrate. The counsel, however, informed that the Minister would be willing to appear before the Magistrate after September 9, when the assembly sessions would have ended.

The counsel also requested the court to permit withdrawal of the present plea and grant liberty to file a new plea challenging the subsequent chargesheet. To this, the court noted that once the subsequent chargesheet was filed, the court did not have to grant liberty to withdraw the plea and file a fresh petition. 

The court, however, asked the counsel that it would permit the withdrawal once the Minister informs the date on which he was willing to appear before the Magistrate's Court. The court added that it would also direct the Magistrate to record the Minister's appearance on the said day.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Haja Mohideen Gisthi

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Ramasamy Meiyappan Government Advocate

Case Title: Marie Wilson v The Station House Officer and Another

Case No: Crl OP No. 18057 of 2026

Tags: