Madras HC Judge Ought To Have Ideally Obtained Orders From Chief Justice Before Proceeding With Suo Motu Revision : Supreme Court On Order Against TN Minister

In the matter pertaining to a Single Judge of Madras High Court taking suo motu revision against the discharge of Tamil Nadu Revenue Minister KKSSR Ramachandran in a corruption case, the Supreme Court today (February 5) observed that the judge ought to have ideally placed the matter before the Chief Justice of the court prior to the passing of the order.After hearing submissions addressed on behalf of Ramachandran and seeing the report submitted by the Registrar General of the Madras High Court, the Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra left it for the Chief Justice of the High Court to take a call on who shall hear and decide the suo motu proceedings initiated by the Single Judge."...we deem it appropriate to say that the suo motu matter ie SMCRLRC No. 1480/2023 should be considered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. He may either proceed to take up the matter himself or may assign it to a judge of the High Court, as he may consider appropriate. Thereafter, the matter may proceed on merits," the court ordered.In arriving at the conclusion, it was noted that although the matter was placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court (as seen from his endorsement made on 21.08.2023), the same was done after the Single Judge passed his order earlier in the day (on 21.08.2023).The top court remarked,"So far as concurrence of the Chief Justice is concerned, considering that he is the master of the roster, all proceedings should ideally emanate from the office of the Chief Justice. In the matter in hand, the learned judge on 21.08.2023 ideally could have directed the Registry to obtain orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court to allot suo motu revision number. Instead, direction was issued to the Registry to allot suo motu revision number for the case being handled by the Hon'ble Judge."It was clarified that the order passed today shall not be construed as making comments on the concerned judge/judges handling the suo motu case(s). Similar matters listed before the Bench, one pertaining to Ramachandran's wife and two others relating to Thangam Thennarasu (Tamil Nadu Minister for Finance, Planning, Human Resources Management, Pensions and Pensionary benefits, Statistics and Archeology), were disposed of in light of the instant order.To give a brief backdrop, the court was hearing Ramachandran's challenge to suo motu cognizance taken by Justice Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court against his discharge in a corruption case. The allegation against Ramachandran in the said case was that he, along with his wife and friend, accumulated wealth disproportionate to his sources of income while serving as a Minister between 2006 and 2011. Ramachandran's challenge was premised on the ground that Justice Venkatesh did not secure prior approval of the Chief Justice of the High Court for exercise of sou motu jurisdiction in the revisional proceeding. In this regard, support was drawn from Rule xiv of Report of the Criminal Rules Committee on Special Courts For Trial of Criminal Cases involving MP/MLAs, which provides thus: “xiv. If any quash application or revision against discharge is admitted by a Single Judge of the High Court, whether on the petition filed by the MP/MLA or by a co-accused in that case, the Principal District Judge should inform the same to the Administrative Committee, which in turn shall bring the matter to the knowledge of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. The Hon'ble Chief Justice being the Master of the Roster, may thereafter assign the case to his own board or to any other Division Bench for disposal.” Today, counsels appearing for Madras High Court countered the submissions made on behalf of Ramachandran, saying that Rule (xiv) comes into play only in a situation when revision application against discharge is admitted by Single Judge of the High Court.On the said aspect, Roy, J commented, "(Rule) 14 may not apply in the manner that they (petitioner's counsels) are suggesting, but it has a role envisaged for the Chief Justice also."Taking into consideration the contentions raised, and a report filed by the Madras High Court, as directed on the date of hearing, the court passed its order.It is worthwhile to mention that earlier, a Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud-led Bench had refused to interfere with Justice Venkatesh's suo motu order re-opening the acquittal of Tamil Nadu Minister K Ponmudy and his wife in a disproportionate assets case. In fact, the CJI had lauded the Madras High Court judge for exercising his suo motu revision powers to raise questions on the transfer of Ponmudy's case from one District Judge to another by an order of the High Court on administrative side, as well as his acquittal.Senior Advocates Dr. AM Singhvi and Siddharth Luthra represented the petitioner/RamachandranSenior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, alongwith Advocate Gautam Narayan, represented Madras High CourtCASE TITLE: THIRU. K.K.S.S.R. RAMACHANDRAN VERSUS STATE...

Madras HC Judge Ought To Have Ideally Obtained Orders From Chief Justice Before Proceeding With Suo Motu Revision : Supreme Court On Order Against TN Minister

Debby Jain

Tags