Can Judge Exercising Administrative Power Transfer Trial From One District To Another? Madras HC To Consider In DA Case Against TN Minister

Justice Anand Venkatesh said that while hearing the revision petitions, the primary issue that the court would deal with would be whether judges holding administrative portfolio over a particular district have powers to transfer a trial from one district to another district.

It may be noted that the trial in Ponmudy's disproportionate asset case was transferred from Villupuram to Vellore by an administrative order of the Madras High Court.

While taking up the suo motu revision petition in August 2023, the judge had observed that the transfer was “ex-facie illegal and non-est in the eyes of law”. The judge had remarked that the Chief Justice, as master of roster, does not enjoy the administrative power to transfer a criminal case pending in a District to another district.

When the matter was taken up today, the court noted that the primary issue to be decided was whether the administrative judge had those powers and whether, on getting the concurrence of the Chief Justice, such a decision would get an elevated status. The court will also look into whether such administrative decision should have been placed before the Full Court for its approval. Lastly, the court would also look into the extent to which the right of the accused would be prejudiced, who faced the trial in a different district which ultimately resulted in its acquittal.

“If the administrative side could do it, then there's nothing to be done. But if not, to what extent it'll prejudice the right of the accused whose trial was conducted in a different district resulting in acquittal,” the judge asked.

The court also emphasised that its intention was not to put blame on a particular person but to test its own decisions. The court highlighted that, ultimately, the court had to speak in one voice.

“Ultimately, Anand Venkatesh is part of the High Court only. Fingers should not be pointed at A,B, or C. The court has to speak in one voice, its one institution. As judges of this stature, holding this position, there's no individuality. The court is only testing itself. The court is not looking into whether what A,B, or C did is wrong,” the court said.

The court thus asked Senior Advocate NR Elango, appearing for Ponmudy and Advocate General PS Raman to assist the court in deciding the issue.

“Ultimately, the person who faced the trial will come and say that I didn't have anything to do with this and its because of your fault. That's why I need assistance. I've to cross this and only then I can look into the manner in which the trial was conducted. Sitting in judicial position it's not possible for me to say that I'm setting aside the order because you've passed it in 4 days. It's not a ground. We have to look whether everything has gone well….All of us owe it to the institution and we must be very careful when we test the waters here,” the court added.

Apart from Ponmudy, the High Court had also taken up suo motu revisions against the orders acquitting/discharging KKSSR Ramachandran, Thangam Thenarasu, O Paneerselvam, B Valarmathi, and I Periyasamy in disproportionate asset cases. Of these, the order taking up suo motu cognisance in Valarmathi's case was stayed by the Supreme Court. The High Court proceeded with the suo motu revisions against other Ministers (except Ponmudy and Valarmathi) and ultimately set aside the order, acquitting/discharging Periyasamy, KKSSRRamachandran, Thangam Thenarasu, and O Paneerselvam. The High Court's order has been stayed by the Supreme Court.

Case Title: Suo Motu RC v. Vigilance and Anti Corruption and Others

Case No: Crl RC 1419 of 2023