Madras HC reverses Tamil Nadu ministers’ acquittal in disproportionate assets cases
In a major setback to the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) government in Tamil Nadu, the Madras high court on Wednesday set aside trial court orders discharging state’s revenue minister KKSSR Ramachandran and finance minister Thangam Thenarasu in disproportionate assets cases and directed the lower court to frame charges against the senior DMK leaders.
In a major setback to the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) government in Tamil Nadu, the Madras high court on Wednesday set aside trial court orders discharging state’s revenue minister KKSSR Ramachandran and finance minister Thangam Thenarasu in disproportionate assets cases and directed the lower court to frame charges against the senior DMK leaders.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh, while passing an order in the criminal revision petition initiated by him, set aside the July 20, 2023 and December 12, 2022 orders, respectively, of the special MP/MLA court in Virudhunagar, discharging revenue minister Ramachandran and finance minister Thennarasu in separate disproportionate assets cases.
“If the rule of law is to mean anything, it must mean that politicians and the common man of this state will be equal before the courts and that the butcher, the baker and the candlelight maker will be treated just the same as a revenue, housing or finance minister of this state,” justice Venkatesh remarked in his order.
The judge directed Ramachandran to appear before the special court in Virudhunagar on September 9 and Thennarasu on September 11. The ministers, both senior leaders of the ruling DMK, have to face trial in the cases registered against them by the state’s anti-graft probe agency, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC).
As prima facie materials were available to frame charges, the special court shall proceed to frame charges and thereafter proceed in accordance with law, the judge ordered.
There is a “clear nexus between the DVAC and politicians to ensure criminal prosecutions are short circuited against the ministers after they come to power”, the judge observed, describing it as one of the worst forms of abuse of process.
In 2012, when the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) was in power in the state, the DVAC field a case against Thennarasu and his wife Manimegalai for amassing disproportionate wealth during the 2006-2010 DMK regime when he was the education minister. After the DMK returned to power in 2021, the couple was discharged by the special court on December 12, 2022.
Similarly, a disproportionate assets case was registered against Ramachandran and his wife Aadhilakshmi in 2011. The same special court discharged them on July 20, 2023 after the DMK led by MK Stalin formed the government in the southern state.
In August last year, justice Venkatesh had suo motu (on his own) initiated criminal revision petition against six Tamil Nadu politicians, including Thennarasu and Ramachandran, who were discharged or acquitted by lower courts in corruption cases.
“It cannot but be observed that the eagerness of the DVAC to resort to further investigation to find material to support the discharge petitions of the accused raises a serious doubt in the mind of this court as to whether the entire investigation had been compromised and derailed with the intent of getting the accused off the hook,” the judge said.
“In this case, the DVAC contested tooth and nail till there was a change of power in the State in 2021,” justice Venkatesh remarked. “The accused were aware that till such time, they could not use the police to ferret defense material in their favour.”
The court questioned the DVAC on whether the process of investigating defence material at the stage of discharge through a further investigation is a facility which they have ever resorted to in cases other than those involving politicians. “The question drew a blank, as the DVAC was not able to point out a single case not involving a politician where such investigative techniques were deployed,” the judge said.
The judge said the special court had committed a “manifest jurisdictional error” in discharging the accused. “Additionally, the very fact that the special court has not assigned a shred of independent reasoning is another reason warranting interference in exercise of revisional powers,” the judge added.
One of the most striking aspects of the two cases, the court remarked, is the “meticulous manner, in which, the DVAC officials have also colluded with each other to ensure that criminal trials against two sitting ministers are quietly and indecently buried within the precincts of the special court.” Once the two ministers were back to power, the DVAC officials decided or were told by their higher ups to find ways and means to ensure that the prosecutions were torpedoed, the court said.
“The perfect plan was thus drawn up,” the judge said, adding the DVAC hunted for material to back up the defence of the accused, culminating with the final closure report. “What is striking is that the so-called written argument (by the accused), the intimation for further investigation and the final closure report were filed on the same day in both cases…,” the judge noted. “Unfortunately, the very same special court did not notice this and fell into or was willing to fall into an error in discharging the accused.”
Earlier in February, justice Venkatesh had set aside the lower court’s order discharging rural development minister I Periyasamy in a graft case and ordered for him to face a fresh trial. The judge had also initiated revision petitions against higher education minister K Ponmudi, former chief minister and expelled AIADMK leader O Panneerselvam, and former minister B Valarmathi of the AIADMK.
NEEDS DMK COMMENTS
OPPN QUOTES