Did Judge Get Chief Justice's Approval Before Taking Suo Motu Cognizance Of Minister's Discharge? Supreme Court Asks Madras HC
The Supreme Court today called for a report from the Registrar General (RG) of Madras High Court over a Single Judge of the court taking suo motu cognizance of the discharge of Tamil Nadu Revenue Minister KKSSR Ramachandran in corruption case.The Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra has asked the RG to clarify whether prior approval of the Chief Justice of the High Court...
The Supreme Court today called for a report from the Registrar General (RG) of Madras High Court over a Single Judge of the court taking suo motu cognizance of the discharge of Tamil Nadu Revenue Minister KKSSR Ramachandran in corruption case.
The Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra has asked the RG to clarify whether prior approval of the Chief Justice of the High Court was obtained by the Single Judge before taking suo motu cognizance wrt Ramachandran's discharge.
The RG is to submit the Report by February 5.
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 for Health, and later as Minister for Backward Classes, in the DMK regime between 2006 and 2011.
On a preliminary inquiry, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) had found that a prima facie case was made out against the accused. Accordingly, Ramachandran and his wife were booked under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Later, however, a final closure report was filed stating that no offences were made out, whereafter Ramachandran and his wife were discharged.
It is worthwhile to mention that besides Ramachandran, Justice Venkatesh has taken up suo moto revisions against the acquittal/discharge of former Minister for Higher Education K. Ponmudy, former Chief Minister O Panneerselvam, former Backward Class and Minority Welfare Minister B Valarmathi, present Finance Minister Thangam Thenarasu and present Rural Development Minister of Tamil Nadu I. Periyasamy.
Last year, while taking up suo motu revision against acquittal of Ponmudy and his wife (in a disproportionate assets case), Justice Venkatesh had held that the transfer of the Minister's case by an order of the High Court on administrative side, from District Judge at Villupuram to District Judge at Vellore, was "ex-facie illegal and non-est in the eye of law". Raising several questions at the transfer and acquittal, the judge had issued notice to the Prosecutor and the accused for fresh hearing.
The State DVAC and Ponmudi had filed applications in response, seeking recusal of Justice Venkatesh from hearing the suo motu revision. However, Justice Venkatesh refused to recuse. In a challenge to the suo motu proceedings, the Supreme Court, in November, 2023, hailed Justice Venkatesh for his suo motu order re-opening the acquittal. The judge's order was not interfered with, considering that the accused could raise the plea of lack of power to initiate suo motu revision before the High Court itself.
"Thank God that we have judges like Anand Venkatesh in High Courts. Look at the conduct. The Chief Justice transfers the trial from one district another district. Where is that power? There is no administrative power to transfer trial. It is a judicial power," CJI DY Chandrachud had said during the hearing.
Earlier this month, on January 8, Justice Venkatesh fixed dates for hearing the suo moto revisions against discharge/acquittal of ministers and clarified that the court will be looking at only the legality of the discharge/acquittal orders, without going into the merits. It was opined that in all these cases, there was a pattern of prosecution conducting further investigation and filing a “final closure report” while the discharge petition filed by the accused was pending. The trial courts had acted upon these final closure reports to discharge/acquit the accused.
The proceedings with respect to Ramachandran are slated to be heard by the Madras High Court from February 5 to February 9.
CASE TITLE: THIRU. K.K.S.S.R. RAMACHANDRAN VERSUS STATE REP. BY: THE ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND ORS., SLP (Crl) Diary No. 3245/2024