Supreme Court Allows Retired Judge Who Acquitted TN Minister Ponmudi To Give Response To Madras HC's Adverse Comments Against Her
A retired Sessions Judge from Tamil Nadu approached the Supreme Court aggrieved by the adverse comments made by a single judge of the Madras High Court against her in relation to the judgment passed by her acquitting State Minister K Ponmudi and his wife in a disproportionate assets case.The petitioner, who retired as the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Vellore, took objection to...
A retired Sessions Judge from Tamil Nadu approached the Supreme Court aggrieved by the adverse comments made by a single judge of the Madras High Court against her in relation to the judgment passed by her acquitting State Minister K Ponmudi and his wife in a disproportionate assets case.
The petitioner, who retired as the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Vellore, took objection to the observations made by High Court judge Justice Anand Venkatesh in his suo motu revision order which re-opened the acquittal citing irregularities in the transfer and conduct of the trial.
Senior Advocate Dr. S Muralidhar appeared for the petitioner before the Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition filed against adverse comments in the suo motu revision order passed by the High Court on August 8, 2023.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra disposed of the petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to submit a response to the adverse observations before the single judge of the High Court who is now hearing the suo motu revision.
The Supreme Court clarified that the observations in the High Court's order are of prima facie nature.
During the hearing, Dr S Muralidhar expressed concerns about these observations and its impact on the petitioner’s career. He pleaded that due to these observations, "her (petitioner’s) career as a judicial officer would come under a cloud without any opportunity to her to present her perspective before the Single Judge.”
Against this backdrop, the Court noted the petitioner’s grievance of not getting an opportunity to explain her “perspective”. The Court permitted her to file a response to the Registrar General of the concerned High Court .The Court clarified that the same was being done to ease the petitioner’s burden to engage a counsel and to appear before the High Court, considering the fact that she was a trial judge who demitted office.
“The Single Judge would be at liberty to take an appropriate view in regard to the conduct of the petitioner after considering the explanation which is tendered by the petitioner.,” the Court added.
However, before parting, the Court added that the petitioner is at liberty to engage counsel to represent her before the Court. A different judge is now hearing the suo motu revision following the roster change of Justice Anand Venkatesh.
It may also be noted that the same bench today refused to entertain the petitions filed by K Ponmudi and his wife against the suo motu revision order. Expressing doubts about the manner in which the trial was transferred and hailing the intervention made by Justice Venktesh, the bench dismissed the petitions by giving liberty to the petitioners to raise their objections before the single judge of the High Court.
Case Title: N VASANTHALEELA Vs. MADRAS HIGH COURT THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL., Diary No.- 43344 - 2023