Madras High Court Reserves Orders On Suo Moto Revisions Against Acquittal Of Former Ministers & Ex-CM O Paneerselvam In Corruption Cases

Justice Anand Venkatesh reserved orders after hearing the DVAC and the Ministers in detail. In August, last year, the court had taken suo motu cognizance against the order of acquittal/discharge of the trial court in the corruption cases. The court had previously remarked that even if it decided to drop the suo motu cases, the intention was to send a message so that no one could take the court and the law for granted.

While taking up the suo motu revisions, the court noted that there was a trend in all the cases where the DVAC changed its stand according to the change in government. The court noted that while in all the cases, the DVAC had found prima facie materials in the preliminary inquiry, with the change in government, the DVAC conducted further investigation and found no materials against the accused.

The allegation against Ramachandran is 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. Though the preliminary inquiry pointed out that a prima facie case existed, the DVAC later filed a final closure report saying that no offence was made out. Following this, the Special Court discharged the Minister.

The allegation against Thangam Thenarasu is that while serving as a Minister for school education during the DMK regime from 2006-2011, he and his wife amassed disproportionate assets. Based on searches conducted in his residence in Virudhunagar and Chennai, a case was filed by the DVAC under PCA. Later, DVAC filed a final closure report saying that no offence was made out and he was discharged by the Special Court.

The case against Paneerselvam was that while serving as the Revenue Minister and the Chief Minister of the state between 19.05.2001 to 21.09.2001 and 02.03.2002 to 12.05.2006, he had accumulated property and pecuniary resources disproportionate to his sources of income. Later, after a further investigation, the prosecution withdrew the case and he was discharged.

Though a plea for recusal of the judge was made alleging chances of bias, the request was rejected and Justice Venkatesh continued to hear the suo motu revisions. In February this year, when the matters were taken to the Supreme Court, the Apex Court observed that Justice Venkatesh ought to have obtained orders from the Chief Justice before proceeding with the suo moto revision and left it to the Madras High Court CJ, to take a call on who should hear the cases. Following this, the matter was re-assigned to Justice Venkatesh.