“Have Opened A Can Of Worms”: Madras HC Judge On Two More Suo Motu Revision Against Ministers Discharge, Calls It An Institutional Problem

After having decided to review every decision passed by the Special MP/MLA Courts in matters concerning politicians, the Madras High Court has once again taken suo motu cognizance of orders discharging Ministers in corruption cases. This time, Justice Anand Venkatesh has taken cognisance of the order acquitting former Backward Class and Minority Welfare Minister B Valarmathi and present Rural Development Minister of Tamil Nadu I. Periyasamy. Calling it an institutional problem, the Judge on Friday said that case after case, the system had failed and now only god could save the institution. “It's like I've opened a can of worms. Case after case, I'm becoming sick. The system has failed systematically. It's becoming shocking. You can give any interpretation but these are facts. I'm tired of looking at cases like this on a regular basis…It is an institutional problem. The system has failed. I do not know how much of this is going to help,” the Judge said in open court on Friday. Adding that DVAC was becoming political, the Judge said that he did not want to pinpoint on DVAC officers as they might have been under pressure. The court also suggested that there should be some system in place in the State. “We have to have some sort of system. DVAC have become politicians. I'm not trying to say anything against the officers, I don't know the type of pressure these officers have to go through,” the court said. CASE AGAINST VALARMATHI The case against B Valarmathi was that while serving as a Minister in the AIADMK cabinet between 2001 and 2006, she, along with her husband and sons had acquired substantial properties and pecuniary resources to the tune of Rs.1,70,34,871. The court noted that in this case, like the pattern observed in previous suo-moto cases, the DVAC had proceeded against the former Minister and later, with a change in power and the accused coming back to power, the DVAC filed a petition for further investigation and did a complete volte face from the earlier stand taken in the charge sheet. The court added that it was “strange and ironic” that the same Investigating officer who had filed the chargesheet had, after further investigation filed a counter affidavit saying that the accused had not acquired any property during the check period. The court added that it was unfortunate that a premier investigating agency had become a plaything in the hands of the politicians. “It is, therefore, evident that after the change in power in the State in 2011, DVAC had, once again acted as the proverbial chameleon dancing to the tunes of the politicians in power. This is not the first time this Court has encountered this condemnable practice of the DVAC. There is a consistent pattern discernable in Suo Motu Crl.R.C.Nos.1480, 1481 and 1524 of 2023 as well. It is unfortunate that a premier investigation agency of the State has become a plaything in the hands of politicians,” the court observed. Special Court Donning Role Of Chartered Accountant The court also noted that while dealing with the discharge petitions filed by Valarmathi, the Special Court had in fact conducted a mini trial and donning the role of a Chartered Accountant enquired into the materials adduced by the accused, comparing it with the information provided by the DVAC and pronouncing a verdict on its merit. The court added that the Special Court had gone on to say that the prosecution had not proved the charge against the accused, even though Court was merely dealing with a discharge petition and not a final hearing post trial. The court also noted that the Special Court had reached the conclusion largely based on income tax returns which itself could not be the basis for discharging the accused in a corruption case. Final Opportunity To Accused The court further noted that the most important reason that the Special Court gave for discharging the accused was that a final opportunity notice was not given before filing the final report. It was noted that though the Special Court had relied upon a decision of the High Court to say that non-issuance of final notice was gravely fatal to prosecution, this decision was reversed by the Supreme Court. The court added that non-issuance of notice could not be a ground for discharging the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act. CASE AGAINST PERIYASAMY The case against Periyamasy was that while serving as the Minister for Housing in the DMK cabinet between 2008 and 2009, he had conspired with other persons to illegally obtain a High Income Group Plot in the Mogappair Eri Scheme of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The court noted that in this case also the accused were playing a “discharge game” by filing petitions one after the other and also approaching the High Court thus in effect halting the proceedings before the Trial Court. The court noted that in his first discharge petition,...

“Have Opened A Can Of Worms”: Madras HC Judge On Two More Suo Motu Revision Against Ministers Discharge, Calls It An Institutional Problem

Upasana Sajeev

Tags