Supreme Court Reserves Verdict On TN Health Minister's Plea In Land Grab Case, To Decide If Sanction Needed To Prosecute For Offence In Past Office

The Supreme Court today (July 23) reserved judgment in a plea moved by Tamil Nadu Health Minister Ma. Subramanian and his wife, challenging the Madras High Court's order refusing to quash the chargesheet against them in an illegal government land grabbing case in Guindy, Chennai. The Court dealt with an interesting issue of law as to whether a sanction to prosecute Subramanian, who is now a State Minister, would be required for an offence allegedly committed while holding the post of Chennia Mayor but, cognizance for which was taken filed after he had vacated the office.That is, is sanction required to prosecute a public servant for an office which he is alleged to have committed, but on the date of taking cognisance he holds an entirely different public office which he is neither alleged to have misused nor abused.A bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Aravind Kumar heard the special leave petition against the March 28 order of the Madras High Court refusing to quash a 2019 chargesheet against Subramanian and his wife filed by the Organised Crime Unit of Crime Branch-CID.The case is based on a complaint filed by S Parthiban, who accused the petitioner and his wife of having illegally grabbed two plots belonging to Small Industries Development Corporation by forging documents and subsequently constructed a residential building. The High Court ordered the commencement of trial. While Senior Advocate A. Sirajudeen, for the Complainant, argued that Subramanian wasn't a Mayor when the case was registered and therefore, no sanction would be required to prosecute him in respect of that case despite the fact that the cognizance is taken now when holds a public office as a State Minister, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for the State Health Minister, and Senior Advocate P Wilson, for Subramanian's wife, opposed this argument. Rohatgi said that even though when he was chargesheeted he did not hold a public office as a Mayor, but now he does as a State Minister. So, a sanction would be required since he is a public servant now. But the sanctioning authority would be the one which was competent to remove him from the position he held earlier as Mayor. He said, "A public servant can wear many hats. The question is, a person may have been an MLA. That term is over; he became an MP. So, in a given case, for an MP, the [authority] would be Speaker here and for MLA, it would be Speaker of the Assembly. It only relates to the offence for which he has abused the office. However, can a Speaker at Lok Sabha grant sanction in respect of a person who is today a minister but was an MLA ten years ago..."Countering this, Sirajudeen said: "His term is over, no question of sanction. That is our point."Various judgments, including R. S. Nayak v. A. R. Antulay (1984), were referred to by both to make their point. On this, Justice Dhulia asked Sirajudeen, "Suppose, if a sanction is required, then what he says is correct or not?"Justice Dhulia orally remarked that this issue may be a "grey area". On the reading of a judgment referred by Tamil Nadu Counsel, Justice Dhulia then said: "This covers your case...Here it is clear, it's visualising a situation where you alleged to have committed an offence earlier when you were a public servant but now you cease to hold that office, and it does not matter if you are holding another office. We are not saying this, Supreme Court is saying this in a case which you have cited."However, Rohatgi responded that the judgment proceeds on the footing that an MLA is not a public servant and may not be relevant for the case.But, the bench clarified that when Subramanian was chargesheeted, he no longer held the office of Mayor and therefore, the case is that no sanction would be required even though cognizance is taken now when he is a Minister. This is the case of the Tamil Nadu government as well.Justice Kumar said: "As a councillor or a mayor, as he then was, he misused his office. As on the date of taking cognisance of the affairs, he ceased to be that. So, no sanction is necessary that is what the sum and substance of this decision."Rohatgi submitted that taking this position would be contrary to Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Case Details: MA. SUBRAMANIAN Vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU|SLP(Crl) No. 007659/2025 Click Here To Read Order Appearances: Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi (for Minister) and Senior Advocate A. Sirajudeen and Advocate on Record Rakesh Sharma R. (for defacto complainant)

Supreme Court Reserves Verdict On TN Health Minister's Plea In Land Grab Case, To Decide If Sanction Needed To Prosecute For Offence In Past Office

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Tags