Even If Suo Motu Revision Of Corruption Cases Are Ultimately Dropped, Message Should Go Out That No One Should Take Courts For Granted: Madras HC

The court was hearing the suo motu revisions against the discharge/acquittal of Revenue Minister KKSSR Ramachandran, Finance Minister Thangam Thenarasu, and former TN CM O Panneerselvam. TN Advocate General PS Raman concluded his arguments today and the matter has been adjourned to Thursday for reply by the Minister's counsel.

While concluding the arguments for the day, Justice Venkatesh commented that even if ultimately the suo motu revisions were to be dropped, no one should take the courts for granted. He also added that he didn't intend to micromanage the trial courts because doing so would negate the purpose of the courts.

“Whatever happens in the suo motu, even if it is dropped in the future, a message should go out and no one should take the court for granted…I also don't want to micromanage. If we do that, then there won't be a need for subordinate courts itself,” the judge said.

Justice Venkatesh added that through the suo motu revisions, his intention was to see whether the trial court had considered all relevant facts while passing the order of discharge. He added that he didn't have a pattern while dealing with the cases and merely wanted to see if all the relevant materials were brought to the court and considered before the impugned orders were passed.

On Tuesday, AG PS Raman backed the further investigation undertaken in the cases and submitted that if the Investigating Officer found any materials that were overlooked in the earlier investigation, he could conduct a further investigation.

Raman submitted that once the materials came to the Investigating Officer's attention and a further investigation was conducted, it was also possible that the materials gathered supplemented the further investigation. He added that ultimately the power was with the Magistrate to deal with the material collected in the further investigation.

In August last year, the court had taken suo motu cognizance against an order of the trial court discharging/acquitting Panneerselvam, Thangam Thenarasu, and KKSSR Ramachandran from a corruption case.

Panneerselvam defended his discharge and argued that merely because a prosecution was initiated against him, it could not be said that he was guilty of corruption. He argued that the prosecution initiated against him was merely due to political differences and a further investigation, which brought to light the relevant materials finding him not guilty was not illegal.

Thangam Thenarsau and KKSSR Ramachandran also defended their acquittal and argued that the investigation was initiated against them in a tainted manner with a biased mind which violated their fundamental rights. The Ministers also submitted that the Magistrate had discretion to look into the reports submitted by the prosecution, both positive and negative, and arrive at his decision.