Madras High Court Reserves Order On Suo Motu Revision Against Minister Periyasamy's Discharge, Questions DVAC's Inaction In Obtaining Sanction

The case against Periyamasy was that while serving as the Minister for Housing in the DMK cabinet between 2008 and 2009, he had conspired with other persons to illegally obtain a High Income Group Plot in the Mogappair Eri Scheme of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.

Justice Anand Venkatesh on Tuesday questioned the DVAC's inaction in obtaining the sanction to prosecute, even after the trial court had discharged the Minister citing improper sanction. The trial court, while discharging Periyasamy had observed that the Speaker was not the proper authority for granting sanction to proceed against the Minister and had noted that the sanction should have been accorded by the Governor as per Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

“If the order would've been passed against someone in the opposition, the DVAC would have right away gone to the Governor and taken sanction. That is exactly my question. Why didn't the DVAC do anything here? I think there was complete inaction on the part of DVAC. Even now it is not too late for the DVAC to go to the Governor and take sanction. The trial court should have directed the DVAC to approach the Governor. Here, all of a sudden it all went into oblivion,” the court remarked.

The court also went on to add that the issue involved a systematic problem that had to be solved. Justice Venkatesh also noted that the suo motu revisions were not merely a Judge-driven initiative but should be a judiciary-driven endeavor to put the system in place. The court also remarked that the court should send a message to the public that it could take action even against people in the highest rank.

Trial Without Sanction Would Waste the Court's Time

On Monday, Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for Periyasamy argued that the trial against Periyasamy was initiated upon a sanction from the Speaker of the House. He argued that this trial was non-est in law since the proper authority for granting sanction was the Governor.

Kumar also argued that while dismissing the first discharge petition, the trial court had noted that the arguments could not be accepted without hearing the Speaker. Kumar, therefore, argued that the second discharge petition which was filed after the commencement of trial and after examining the witness would still be maintainable in light of the trial court's earlier order.

Kumar also argued that the trial, which was non-est in law could not be allowed to continue as it would be wasting the court's time and public money. He argued that the criminal law did not prohibit a second discharge petition even after the charges were framed and when it was noticed that a wrong had been committed, the defense could be taken at any time.