Supreme Court Stays Trial Against TN Minister Periyasamy In Corruption Case

A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra heard the matter.

Previously, on (March 20), the Division Bench issued notice in the petition and also allowed the Minister to seek deferment of Trial, given that the Top Court is seized of the matter.

Today, Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for Periyasamy, pointed out that even though the Apex Court granted liberty to apply to the Trial Court for deferment of the trial, the same application was declined. Imperatively, the Trial Court declined to defer the trial because of the High Court's direction to conclude the trial on or before 31.07.2024.

In view of these submissions, the Top Court ordered:

"This Court is examining the merit of the same judgment...in the circumstances, we are of the view that the trial ordered by the Trial Court should not proceed while this court is considering the challenge by the accused. Accordingly, the proceedings is stayed until the next date of the hearing."

In brief, the allegation against Periyasamy is 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. The land was allotted to C. Ganesan, the personal security officer to then-Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi.

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. It may be noted that Periyasamy's case was among several suo motu cases of corruption taken up by Justice Venkatesh.

Earlier (when the Apex Court had issued notice), Senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued for Periyasamy that only the Governor could have sanctioned the trial against him for misusing his office as a Minister. However, in this instance, the Speaker issued the sanction. Sibal cited R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, 1984 2 SCC 183, to bolster his argument that sanction can only be issued by the Governor, and sanction from the Speaker would be of no use.

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

Click Here To Read/Download Order