Were Procedures Followed Before Numbering Suo Moto Revision Petitions? Madras High Court Asks Registry

The judge remarked that in October 2019 the administrative committee consisting of the Chief Justice and six senior most judges had resolved to constitute a committee consisting of three judges to consider whether letters received by individual judges could be taken up as suo moto Public Interest Litigations. The judge asked Advocate Santhanaraman, appearing for the Registry, if such procedure was followed only for public interest litigations or for criminal revision, and if so, whether such procedure was followed in the present cases.

The Judge also remarked that the suo moto revision petitions could not be heard on merits until the court was satisfied that the procedures were duly followed before taking up the suo moto revision petitions. The court thus directed the Registry to respond to the queries by January 8^th.

In August this year, Justice Anand Venkatesh had decided to exercise suo moto revision powers against the acquittal of Tamil Nadu Higher Education Minister K Ponmudi and his wife in a disproportionate assets case. Justice Venkatesh went on to observe that there was something “amiss” in the order of acquittal by the District Court, Vellore. He criticized the administrative order made by the High Court transferring the trial from District Judge at Villupuram to District Judge at Vellore calling it "ex-facie illegal and non-est in the eye of law". He called the entire proceeding a “shocking and calculated attempt to manipulate and subvert the criminal justice system”.

After Ponmudi, Justice Venkatesh took up suo moto revisions against the acquittal and discharge of Tamil Nadu Revenue Minister KKSSR Ramachandran, Finance Minister Thangam Thenarasu, Former Chief Minister O Paneerselvam, former Backward Class and Minority Welfare Minister B Valarmathi and present Rural Development Minister of Tamil Nadu I. Periyasamy.

Justice Venkatesh had also strongly criticised the conduct of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, calling them “chameleons, changing colour with the government”. Though the DVAC and the Ministers had requested a recusal on the basis of apprehension of bias, the request was dismissed.

When Minister Ponmudi and his wife challenged the High Court's order exercising suo moto revision powers before the Supreme Court, the court refused to interfere with the order and even raised concerns in the manner in which the trial was transferred. The Chief Justice had even went on to observe that Justice Anand Venkatesh was absolutely right in his observations.