Madras High Court Criticizes DVAC For "Short Circuiting" Criminal Prosecution Of Ministers, Says Politician And Common Man Equal Before Law

While setting aside the discharge of Tamil Nadu's Revenue and Finance Ministers KKSSR Ramachandran and Thangam Thenarasu respectively in a disproportionate assets case, the Madras High Court said that it had a sacrosanct constitutional duty to interfere to prevent the "grossest abuse" of the judicial process.The court observed that the rule of law meant that every person would be equal before the court. Justice Anand Venkatesh found there is prima facie material to proceed against the two Ministers and directed the respective special courts to proceed with the framing of the charge and conduct the trial as expeditiously as possible on a day-to-day basis. “After these illegalities have come to the notice of this Court, this Court considers it a sacrosanct Constitutional duty of the High Court to intervene on what this Court considers is a matter of principle to prevent the grossest abuse of the judicial process, which has resulted in the miscarriage of justice. If the rule of law is to mean anything, it must mean that politicians and the common man of this State will be equal before the Courts and that the butcher, the baker and the candlelight maker will be treated just the same as a Revenue, Housing or Finance Minister of this State,” the court observed. Calling it one of the worst forms of abuse of process, the court noted that the conduct of the Investigating Officers pointed to a clear nexus between the DVAC and politicians to ensure that criminal prosecutions were short-circuited against the ministers after they came to power. The court added that the statutory power of further investigation had been used for oblique purposes. “This is perhaps one of the worst forms of abuse of process where the statutory power of further investigation has been used for oblique purposes,” the court said. The court also commented that such modus operandi where the DVAC misused its power of further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC and submitted a final closure report for discharging the accused, was happening only in the State of Tamil Nadu and did not find a parallel anywhere else. The court added that such situations had to be dealt with iron hands to prevent other politicians from getting inspiration from this conduct. “This Court must, therefore, deal with this situation with an iron hand, lest this becomes an inspiration for politicians in other States, who are facing criminal prosecutions. The Courts, trying these cases, must be vigilant to ensure that the streams of justice are not hijacked and polluted by the accused and the prosecution working in tandem,” the court said. The court also observed that the Special Court had committed a manifest error by exceeding its jurisdiction under Section 227 CrPC and discharging the accused by relying on the materials gathered by the Investigating Officer in the final closure report and treating them as genuine. The court added that the final closure report was a clear abuse of the power of further investigation designed solely to get the accused off the hook. The court opined that there was a well-orchestrated plan between the DVAC officials to ensure that the criminal trials against the sitting ministers were quietly and indecently buried within the precincts of the Special court. The court noted that the cases were initiated when the ministers were in opposition and the investigating authority had found prima facie materials against them. Thereafter, when the Ministers were back in power, the DVAC officials decided or were instructed by higher-ups to find ways and means to ensure that the prosecution was torpedoed. The court remarked that the further investigation was nothing but a ruse to gather material to facilitate the discharge of the accused ministers. Though the Ministers and the DVAC argued that the investigating authority had the power to conduct further investigation, the court noted that there was a distinction between the existence of the power and its use for oblique purposes. The court added that such powers were granted to be used honestly and when they were used for collateral and oblique purposes, the same would be beyond the ambit of law. “There is a fundamental distinction between the existence of a power and the use of such power for oblique purposes. Where a statutory authority is vested with certain statutory powers, such power is granted on the condition that it would be used honestly and for purposes that subserve the basis, for which, such power is conferred. Where the power is used for collateral or oblique purposes, such an exercise would be clearly beyond the ambit of the law,” the court observed. The court thus allowed the suo motu revisions and restored the cases in the Special court Counsel for Respondents (in KKSSR Ramachandran Case): Mr. P.S. Raman, AG assisted by Mr. K.M.D.Muhilan, GA (Crl. Side), Dr.S.Muralidhar, SC for Mr.S.Agilesh...

Madras High Court Criticizes DVAC For "Short Circuiting" Criminal Prosecution Of Ministers, Says Politician And Common Man Equal Before Law

Upasana Sajeev

Tags