Supreme Court Issues Notice On TN Minister Periyasamy's Plea Against HC Order Setting Aside His Discharge In Corruption Case

Gyanvi Khanna

20 March 2024 2:57 PM GMT

  • Supreme Court Issues Notice On TN Minister Periyasamys Plea Against HC Order Setting Aside His Discharge In Corruption Case

    The Supreme Court (on March 18) issued notice on a petition filed by Tamil Nadu Rural Development Minister I Periyasamy challenging the Madras High Court's order setting aside his discharge in a corruption case. The case against Periyasamy was that while serving as the Minister for Housing in the DMK cabinet between 2008 and 2009, he conspired with others to illegally obtain a High...

    The Supreme Court (on March 18) issued notice on a petition filed by Tamil Nadu Rural Development Minister I Periyasamy challenging the Madras High Court's order setting aside his discharge in a corruption case.

    The case against Periyasamy was that while serving as the Minister for Housing in the DMK cabinet between 2008 and 2009, he conspired with others to illegally obtain a High Income Group Plot in the Mogappair Eri Scheme of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.

    Though the Trial Court had discharged the Minister, the High Court's Single-Judge Bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh, through suo moto revision, had set aside the trial court order. Apart from this, the High Court also ordered the trial to be transferred from the Special Court for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act to the Special Court for the trial of cases against MPs and MLAs.

    Now, the Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra have also allowed the Minister to seek deferment of Trial, given that the Top Court is seized of the matter.

    As the trial is ordered to re-commence against the petitioner on 28.03.2024, the petitioner is at liberty to make application before the Trial Court for deferment of the trial since this Court is seisin of the matter.”

    Senior advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Periyasamy. He argued that prior sanction from the Governor, the competent authority to remove a Minister from office, was required to initiate the trial against Periyasamy. However, in the present case, a sanction was issued by the Speaker instead. The Senior Advocate also relied upon R.S. Nayak V to support his arguments. A.R. Antulay., 1984 2 SCC 183. He argued that to prosecute Periyasamy for misusing his office as a Cabinet Minister, sanction can only be issued by the Governor, and sanction from the Speaker would be of no use.

    In view of these submissions, the Court issued notice.

    Case Title: I. PERIYASAMY vs. THE STATE DIRECTORATE OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION., Diary No.- 11494 - 2024

    Click here to read/ download the order


    Next Story