DMK Ministers in scorching water as Excessive Courtroom orders evaluation of acquittals

September 5, 2023September 5, 2023 admin

A Madras Excessive Courtroom decide, in an unprecedented transfer, took suo motu discover and revised the acquittal and discharge orders given to 3 senior DMK Ministers of the Tamil Nadu authorities in corruption circumstances that had been heard by Particular Courts. He adopted it up a number of days later with a fourth revision, this time of a 2012 discharge order in a corruption case in opposition to former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister O. Panneerselvam of the AIADMK.

Then, on 31 August, the decide mentioned he would look at all judgments handed to date by particular courts in MP/MLA circumstances within the State. He mentioned there have been complaints of corruption circumstances in opposition to legislators being withdrawn throughout each regime change.

Additionally Learn | Controversial arrest of Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji sparks outrage and political backlash

The revision orders, filed by Justice N. Anand Venkatesh of the Madras Excessive Courtroom, come as a humiliation to the DMK at a time when it has been working onerous to thrust back a collection of corruption costs levelled in opposition to its Ministers and leaders by its political opponents, particularly the BJP. The social gathering that prides itself on its Dravidian mannequin of governance just lately launched a marketing campaign for the 2024 Lok Sabha election.

Justice Venkatesh, who can also be the State’s portfolio decide for Particular Courts for MPs and MLAs, reviewed the orders of the particular courts at Vellore and Srivilliputhur, which acquitted the DMK Ministers Okay. Ponmudi, Okay.Okay.S.S.R. Ramachandran, and Thangam Thennarasu of corruption costs and discharged them. The decide mentioned he had discovered damning materials to counsel that “one thing was rotten within the State of Denmark”.

Thangam Thennarasu, Minister for Finance, Planning, Human Assets Administration, Pensions and Pensionary advantages, Statistics and Archeology.
| Photograph Credit score:
B. JOTHI RAMALINGAM

The decide mentioned that O. Panneerselvam’s case had led to the devising of a modus operandi, which was subsequently adopted by the incumbent Income Minister Okay.Okay.S.S.R. Ramachandran and Finance Minister Thangam Thennarasu to get the disproportionate property circumstances in opposition to them discharged.

His stories converse of “a well-orchestrated sample” in these circumstances with their orders for additional investigations and of their closure stories. The particular courts’ orders, he mentioned, suffered from “grave illegality” and “gross miscarriage of justice” and wanted to be revisited. Justice Venkatesh has directed the registry to tell the federal government and serve notices on all of the accused, on the investigation company, and on the State’s Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), and has posted the listening to for September.

DMK’s response

The DMK was fast to react to the decide’s orders. R.S. Bharathi, the DMK’s organising secretary and senior spokesperson, mentioned the decide was utilizing a “choose and select” coverage that smacked of discrimination. Addressing media individuals on August 24, he mentioned that although judges had been vested with discretionary powers to take up circumstances suo motu, “the discretion shouldn’t be formed by mala fide intentions”. Whereas saying the DMK “respects and trusts the judges and judicial independence”, Bharathi requested if the decide would apply the identical yardstick in comparable circumstances.

Bharathi additionally requested if judicial officers in subordinate courts may perform with out worry or favour if a superior authority began scrutinising all their orders. The DMK, Bharathi mentioned, would take up the difficulty with the Supreme Courtroom.

In a rebuttal, Justice Venkatesh mentioned that those that couldn’t tolerate criticism had been unfit to carry public workplace. Responding to an advocate’s plea asking him to provoke a contempt case in opposition to the DMK spokesperson for alleging mala fide intention behind his orders, the decide mentioned in open court docket on August 25: “Let anybody speak something. I do know I’m true to my conscience. I’ve a greater job to do.”

The DMK has causes to be cautious about developments which can be inimical to its ideological and political relevance at this time. The social gathering, which is now on the ethical excessive floor in opposition to the BJP, is apprehensive of being trapped in political awkwardness.

Political specialists consider the social gathering’s discomfort stems from the continuing confrontation with Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi, whose statements and actions, it believes, are harming governance. The Governor remains to be sitting on numerous Payments and orders of public significance and indulges in acts and speeches that go in opposition to the elected authorities.

Highlights

Madras Excessive Courtroom Choose N. Anand Venkatesh has despatched shockwaves by way of Tamil Nadu’s political panorama, by revising acquittal and discharge orders for senior DMK Ministers. His actions have raised vital doubts concerning the state of corruption circumstances within the area.
These sudden developments couldn’t have come at a extra crucial time for the DMK, because the social gathering is already grappling with a barrage of corruption allegations. Justice Venkatesh’s revisions have additional sophisticated the political scene in Tamil Nadu.
Past the instant political fallout, Justice Venkatesh’s selections have sparked a heated debate about judicial intervention and the general integrity of the prison justice system. These controversies are contributing to the rising political pressure within the State..

In the meantime, no less than two DMK Ministers have fallen foul of the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Minister for Electrical energy Senthil Balaji was arrested in a jobs-for-money rip-off in addition to on cash laundering costs, that are alleged to have taken place a decade in the past when he was Transport Minister within the then AIADMK authorities. The DMK’s Schooling Minister, Okay. Ponmudi, was taken in for interrogation in a cash laundering and sand quarry rip-off, whereas Ponmudi’s son, Gautham Sigamani, a DMK Lok Sabha MP, was additionally interrogated in the identical case.

Significance of the revisions

“It’s irritating. As they [the Central government] select to play vindictive politics in opposition to us for political positive factors, we should be cautious and stay restrained. However we’ve to make clear every little thing to the individuals,” a senior DMK functionary advised Frontline. It’s on this politically charged local weather that Justice Venkatesh’s judicial revisions assume significance. He issued three separate orders within the circumstances in opposition to the three Ministers—an 18-page report on the acquittal of Okay. Ponmudi on August 10; and two 30-page stories, one every on the discharge of Income Minister Okay.Okay.S.S.R. Ramachandran and Finance Minister Thangam Thennarasu, on August 23. The stories increase disturbing questions on the conduct of the prosecuting company and the judiciary.

Okay.Okay.S.S.R. Ramachandran, Minister for Income and Catastrophe Administration.
| Photograph Credit score:
G. MOORTHY

Whereas the case in opposition to Ponmudi resulted in his acquittal within the Particular Courtroom at Vellore on June 28 this 12 months, the circumstances in opposition to Ramachandran and Thennarasu had been dismissed by the Particular Courtroom at Srivilliputhur in Virudhunagar district, on July 20, 2023, and on December 12, 2022.

In his report on the closure of the 2 circumstances, the decide talks intimately about how the prosecution course of was grossly abused. He writes {that a} highly effective political system went to a terrific extent to tweak the method of the legislation.

The decide writes that he noticed a standard modus operandi in all three circumstances. He notes: “The three stakeholders, viz., the accused, the prosecution, and the Particular Courtroom, have acted in tandem to scale back the administration of the prison justice system to a whole farce.” In line with the decide, when his consideration was drawn to the acquittal of Ponmudi, he discovered one thing “severely amiss” and sought the case information. Whereas going by way of the information, “the doubt… was proved proper,” he notes.

The report goes on to say that after the accused grew to become Ministers, the prosecution “very magnanimously got here ahead” to conduct “additional investigation”, particularly within the circumstances of Ramachandran and Thennarasu, which led to closure stories that supported their discharge.

“One thing may be very rotten within the Particular Courtroom for MP/MLA Circumstances,” the decide mentioned, declaring that the circumstances had been adjourned till 2021, which was when the principle accused had been made Ministers within the State cupboard. It was obvious, the decide mentioned, that upon a change of energy within the State in 2021, “all of the gamers within the sport instantly discovered themselves on the identical staff”. “This, subsequently, is yet one more occasion of a prison trial being derailed by the energetic design of these on the helm of political energy,” he noticed.

The KKSSR Ramachandran case

The case in opposition to the Minister for Backward Courses was that between April 1, 2006, and March 31, 2010, he alongside together with his spouse R. Aadhilakshmi and pal Okay.S.P. Shanmugamoorthy amassed property price Rs 44.59 lakh that was in extra of their recognized sources of revenue.

On December 20, 2011, the DVAC, Virudhunagar, registered a case beneath the Prevention of Corruption Act. After investigations, an exhaustive ultimate report was filed earlier than the Particular Courtroom in Madurai on September 5, 2012. The case was transferred to the Particular court docket for MPs and MLAs in Srivilliputhur for administrative causes. It dragged on until the Meeting elections of Could 2021, which noticed Ramachandran grow to be Minister once more within the new DMK authorities.

FACTBOX: Well-known judgments

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, 52, is a first- technology lawyer who grew to become a everlasting decide of the Madras Excessive Courtroom in February 2020. He has proven a delicate grasp over the legislation and its nuances in his verdicts.

In a landmark case on the LGBTQIA+ neighborhood in 2021, he really attended a psycho-educative counselling class to grasp the prejudices the neighborhood confronted. It was following his orders that the Nationwide Medical Fee declared conversion remedy an act {of professional} misconduct. The Tamil Nadu authorities amended its Conduct Guidelines to stop its officers harassing the LGBTQIA+ neighborhood.

Ruling on a 2023 petition from a widow denied entry right into a temple in Erode, he dominated that marital standing couldn’t determine a girl’s id. In a case a couple of temple in Myladuthurai, he mentioned: “If temples are was a supply of discrimination and violence, it will likely be higher to shut [them] down”. He additionally refused to quash a 2018 prison case in opposition to comic S. Ve. Sekher for circulating an abusive publish about ladies journalists on his social media account.

Then, on September 15, 2021, the investigation officer sought “additional” investigation, which the court docket accepted. He subsequently filed a Ultimate Closure Report, which claimed that the Minister’s household had financial savings of Rs 1.49 lakh and never disproportionate property price Rs 44.59 lakh. The particular court docket decide V. Thilaham accepted the closure report on October 28, 2022, and discharged all three accused on July 20, 2023. On the identical day and in the identical court docket, an identically worded Ultimate Closure Report was filed within the case in opposition to Thennarasu and his spouse.

The Thangam Thennarasu case

The Thangam Thennarasu case was precisely the identical as Ramachandran’s. Thennarasu and his spouse Manimegalai had allegedly amassed property price Rs. 74.58 lakh between Could 15, 2006 and March 31, 2010, when he was Faculty Schooling Minister within the then DMK authorities.

The Virudhunagar DVAC filed a case on February 14, 2012 beneath the Prevention of Corruption Act. The then investigation officer S. Swaminathan filed a ultimate report earlier than the particular court docket in Madurai on November 15, 2012. This case too was transferred to the particular court docket in Srivilliputhur. A spate of discharge petitions, appeals, adjournments, the COVID outbreak, and administrative selections delayed its listening to.

Right here, too, the Investigation Officer Boominathan sought “additional” investigation when Thennarasu grew to become a Minister. On October 28, 2022, Boominathan filed the Ultimate Closure Report, which claimed that the accused had extra financial savings of Rs. 1.54 lakh and never disproportionate property price Rs. 74.85 lakh as talked about within the 2012 cost sheet. The Minister and his spouse had been discharged on December 12, 2022.

“Whether or not the ultimate report was proper or incorrect may have been assessed solely after trial,” the decide famous, saying the particular court docket order suffered from grave illegality which resulted in gross miscarriage of justice.

Additionally Learn | Tamil Nadu Cupboard reshuffle: PTR shifted to IT ministry, TRB Rajaa will get Industries

Justice Venkatesh got here down closely on the 2 investigating officers of the DVAC (Okay. Ramachandran within the Ramachandran case and Boominathan within the Thennarasu case) who, he mentioned, had “cooked up a cocktail hitherto unknown to prison legislation” by submitting “ultimate closure stories”. “This was clearly mischievous since there may be just one ultimate report beneath the legislation (Part 173(2) of the CrPC),” he mentioned.

The particular court docket additionally entertained this “unusual and weird process”. The decide mentioned neither the investigating company nor the Justice of the Peace had any energy beneath legislation to conduct a “recent investigation”.

As for the acquittal of Ponmudi by the particular court docket at Vellore, the decide referred to as it “a stunning and calculated try to govern and subvert the prison justice system”. He mentioned it was disturbing that the case was transferred from the Villupuram Particular Courtroom to Vellore in the direction of the top of the trial, following an administrative order from the Madras Excessive Courtroom.

The costs in opposition to Ponmudi had been that when he was the Minister of Transport within the then DMK authorities between Could 13, 1996 and September 30, 2001, he allegedly acquired properties and different pecuniary assets disproportionate to his recognized sources of revenue.

The Cuddalore DVAC registered an FIR on March 14, 2002 beneath the Prevention of Corruption Act in opposition to Ponmudi, his spouse Visalakshi, and three others. A ultimate report was set earlier than the Particular Choose, Villupuram in 2003.

The accused filed discharge petitions, which had been opposed by the prosecution. The matter went to the Supreme Courtroom, which put aside the petitions. Consequently, in 2019, costs had been once more framed in opposition to three of the accused, together with Ponmudi (two of the accused had handed away by then).

Choose Venkatesh identified the anomalies at this stage. The particular court docket decide wrote a letter to the Madras Excessive Courtroom searching for permission to expedite the listening to by conducting a particular sitting for 4 days in Could 2022. The Excessive Courtroom rejected it. The Excessive Courtroom’s Administrative Judges of Villupuram district despatched notes, dated July 6, 2022, directing the case to be transferred to the Vellore Particular Courtroom from the Villupuram court docket. The Chief Justice accepted this.

The decide goes on to say that on June 23, 2023, written submissions had been made and inside 4 days, the Vellore court docket “managed (or quite stage-managed) to ship a 226-page testomony/judgment acquitting all of the accused. Two days thereafter, the Principal District Choose of Vellore retired.”

Choose Venkatesh determined to train his powers beneath Part 397 and 401 of the CrPC and Article 227 of the Structure since he discovered a calculated try and “undermine and thwart the administration of prison justice”.

He requested how the 2 judges received the facility to switch a pending prison case from one district to a different by the use of an administrative word. This was a judicial energy vested with the Excessive Courtroom beneath Part 407 of the CrPC. “A word of the Administrative Judges directing the switch is ex-facie unlawful and non-est in legislation,” he mentioned.

Reacting to Justice Venkatesh’s suo motu revision, Justice Okay. Chandru, former decide of the Madras Excessive Courtroom, mentioned that in corruption circumstances when the regime modified, the character of investigation too invariably underwent a change. He pointed to the particular court docket that the DMK authorities (1996-2001) constituted to strive the corruption case it had filed in opposition to Jayalalitha, which she challenged.

When Jayalalitha returned to energy in 2001, issues took a unique course. Because of the efforts of DMK chief Okay. Anbazhagan, the case was transferred to a particular court docket in Karnataka, the place, after a protracted trial, Jayalalitha was convicted. “However for the switch, the results of the case would have been totally different,” mentioned Choose Chandru.

In corruption circumstances in opposition to Ministers, there’s at all times the suspicion that the investigation officer could present bias in the direction of the ruling dispensation. “It’s on this background that Justice Anand Venkatesh took suo motu cognisance beneath Part 397 of the CrPC, which can’t be faulted,” the previous decide mentioned.

“The decide additionally can’t be requested why earlier circumstances of Ministers within the earlier authorities weren’t taken up in an identical method. Perhaps the identical decide was not there or different judges could not have wished to train such extraordinary powers. No improper motives may be attributed to the decide on this rating,” he mentioned.

He identified that if the argument made by R.S. Bharathi was accepted, then no decide would have the ability to use revisional powers. Justice Chandru mentioned: “On no account can the prison justice system be allowed to be perverted at anybody’s behest. In any case, within the revision petition the aggrieved events may also be heard earlier than any orders are handed.”