Irreversible Situation Likely If Conviction Not Stayed: Supreme Court Reasons In Former TN Minister Ponmudi's DA Case

While staying former Tamil Nadu Minister K Ponmudi's conviction and sentence in a disproportionate assets case, the Supreme Court recently observed that in view of Section 8(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, the MLA, who was sentenced to over 2 years of imprisonment, would have incurred disqualification as a result of conviction, yet prima facie the High Court did not consider the main question as to whether the Special Court's view (of acquittal) was a possible view.  

The Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan declared that a case was made out for stay of conviction and sentence, as "in view of operation of Section 8(3) of the 1951 Act, irreversible situation will be created if conviction is not suspended".

The order came in Ponmudi's challenge to a Madras High Court order setting aside his acquittal in the DA case. The case was registered against him (& his wife) by the Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) based on allegations that he amassed wealth disproportionate to his sources of income during his tenure as the Minister for Mines and Minerals in the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) government (2006-2010).

The Special Court had acquitted Ponmudi and his wife, however, the High Court had reversed the acquittal, whereafter the pair was sentenced to simple imprisonment for 3 years alongwith fine.

In its order of March 11, staying conviction & sentence wrt Ponmudi, and only sentence wrt his wife, the Supreme Court Bench noted that under Section 8(3) of the RP Act, an MLA sentenced for over 2 years incurs disqualification as a result of conviction. The order was uploaded today.

Perusing the impugned judgment, it came to a prima facie finding that the High Court did not consider the main question as to whether the Special Court's view was a possible view.

Besides the facts of Ponmudi's case, the Bench was guided by a 3-Judge decision in Afjal Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh which, by a 2:1 majority, suspended the conviction of BSP MP Afzal Ansari in a case under the UP Gangster Act case, paving way for restoration of his membership in the Lok Sabha. Justice Bhuyan was part of the majority view in this case, which noted that stay of conviction is to be granted only in exceptional circumstances but,

"where conviction, if allowed to operate would lead to irreparable damage and where the convict cannot be compensated in any monetary terms or otherwise, if he is acquitted later on, that by itself carves out an exceptional situation."

In the said case, the majority had also outlined a potential impact on electorate if conviction in such cases is not stayed.

Case Title: K Ponmudi@Deivasigamani v. The State of Tamil Nadu, Crl.A. No. 530-531/2024

Click here to read the order