Supreme Court Stays Trial Against TN Minister Durai Murugan In Disproportionate Assets Case
The Supreme Court today granted interim stay on trial proceedings against Tamil Nadu Minister Durai Murugan in a disproportionate assets case. Murugan is currently the Minister for Water Resources in the state government led by Chief Minister MK Stalin.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and issued notice on his delay condonation application and SLP against a judgment of the Madras High Court which had set aside his discharge in the case and directed the trial court to proceed.
“There shall be no further proceedings until the next date of hearing. Issue notice returnable on 20th April”, the Court stated.
Today, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi sought a stay on trial, highlighting that Murugan had been granted similar relief in another case involving a different period of time.
On the cause of delay in filing the SLP only in February 2026 against an order passed in April 2025, he submitted that Murugan is 87 years old and recently suffered a hip fracture.
The Court granted interim stay till the next date of hearing the matter, and issued notice returnable on April 20, 2026.
Background
The case relates to allegations that Murugan, while serving as Minister for Public Works and Forest Department between 1996 and 2001, acquired properties in his name and in the names of his wife and son. The State filed a chargesheet for offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The State challenged the Special Court's order discharging Murugan before the High Court.
Murugan opposed the plea arguing that the prosecution had wrongly clubbed properties belonging to other accused with his own. He submitted that he could not be held responsible for properties acquired independently by others and that he had not acquired any property during the check period. He also claimed that the case was politically motivated.
The High Court held that these issues required appreciation of evidence during trial. It said that at the stage of framing of charge, the court cannot assess the probative value of materials and must accept the prosecution's materials as true.
The Court noted that the Special Court had discharged the accused without framing charges and without giving the prosecution an opportunity to substantiate its case, warranting interference. It also observed that the Special Judge had interpreted the facts in his own way and that the reasons for discharge were perverse.
Holding that the materials placed by the prosecution disclosed a prima facie case, the High Court set aside the discharge order. It directed the Special Court to frame charges and proceed with the trial. Since the case pertains to the check period between 1996 and 2001, the Court directed that the trial be completed within six months from the date of its order.
Case no. – Diary No. 12540 / 2026
Case Title – Durai Murugan v. State of Tamil Nadu