“Robbing Reputation & Earnest Service”: Retd Judge Who Acquitted Tamil Nadu Minister Ponmudi Responds To Adverse Observations By High Court

The retired Principle District Judge, who had acquitted Tamil Nadu Minister Ponmudi and his family in a disproportionate assets case has responded to the adverse remarks made against her by the single judge in his suo motu revision order. In August this year, while exercising suo motu revision powers, Justice Anand Venkatesh had strongly criticized how the trial against the Minister and his wife was transferred from Principal District Court, Villupuram to Principal District Court, Vellore calling it ex-facie illegal and non-est in the eye of law. In his order, Justice Venkatesh also questioned how the Principal District Judge delivered a 226-page judgment acquitting all the accused within 4 days suggesting that there was a calculated attempt to manipulate the criminal justice system. Though the judicial officer had first approached the Apex court against these observations, the Supreme Court disposed of the petition by giving her liberty to submit a response to the adverse observations before the single judge of the High Court who is now hearing the suo motu revision. In her response submitted to the Registrar General of Madras High Court, the law officer submitted that the observations made by the single judge were a set of unwarranted derogatory and disparaging remarks. “To my personal feeling in publication of para 12 of the impugned order in all modern media including newspapers, it is nothing but robbing of my reputation and also my earnest service in the judiciary, by single stroke of pen vide order dated 10/08/2023 in Suo moto Crl.R.C.No.1419 of 2023 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, that too within less than 45 days of my retirement,” she submitted. Listing out the posting details of the case, the law officer submitted that she was only following the directions of the High Court made at the time of transferring the case, to expeditiously dispose of the case. She further submitted that there was no alacrity in hearing the matter but the case was regularly and periodically posted and heard from the beginning when it was taken on file. She further submitted that 90% of the trial was already completed before the Villupuram court and only 10% of the trial was conducted by her by examining 2 prosecution witnesses and 1 defence witness. Pointing out to the docket entries, she added that even these witnesses were neither quickly nor belatedly examined as alleged by the single judge. To the observation of a 226-page judgment being delivered within 4 days, she submitted that out of the 226 pages of the judgment, the discussion and decretal portion roughly worked out to 75 pages only and nearly 150 pages consisted of the pleadings, list of witnesses and documents. She added that in actuality, the judgment was pronounced only after 9 days from the date of the argument as per the ethical norms and directions of the High Court and Supreme Court. She also pointed out that during the intervening month of May, during the summer vacation, she had ample time to study the entire case records which also enabled her to hear the arguments and pronounce the judgment effectively. Calling the Single judge's remarks unwarranted, the judicial officer also submitted that time and again, the Supreme Court has observed that the High Courts should refrain from using disparaging remarks against lower officers when the judgments were under appeal or revision especially when the judicial officer had no opportunity to give his/her explanation. She also added that the comments, which were bereft of any logical reasoning, would also cause serious harm to her future prospects. “I emphatically submit that the disparaging remarks made by the Hon'ble Single Judge is wholly unwarranted and unjustifiable and its retention on records will cause serious harm to me and my future prospects of my career will come to a standstill. Further, the Hon'ble Single Judge has not given any logical reasoning as to what was fault committed by me and no finding as to why the Hon'ble Lordship has disagreed with the reasoning given by me also not recorded,” she said. Thus, the judicial officer sought to expunge the remarks made by the single judge in his order exercising suo moto revision.

“Robbing Reputation & Earnest Service”: Retd Judge Who Acquitted Tamil Nadu Minister Ponmudi Responds To Adverse Observations By High Court

Upasana Sajeev

Tags