In a recent development, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) has raised concerns over the Madras High Court’s decision to take up a suo motu revision of the acquittal of Minister K. Ponmudi.
Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, representing the DVAC, questioned the propriety of Justice Venkatesh’s order, which was passed without issuing notice to the High Court on the administrative side and without hearing all parties involved. Luthra stated,
“Without such notice (to the High Court), in effect your lordship’s judgement seems like the issue has been pre-decided and it is therefore, a final order. The suo motu jurisdiction was exercised on material that the parties had no access to. The Court did that without giving an opportunity to the other parties. Can the Court do that?”
Luthra further expressed concerns that the judge might have pre-determined the outcome, suggesting that something wrong had occurred in the acquittal of Ponmudi and his co-accused. He emphasized that while the Court’s suo motu revisional jurisdiction needs to be decided, Justice Venkatesh should, “in the interest of the principles of judicial propriety,” request the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice. This would then allow the Chief Justice to allocate it for hearing before an appropriate bench.
Additionally, Luthra highlighted that the High Court’s suo motu revision was initiated even before the DVAC’s window to file an appeal challenging the acquittal had expired. However, when questioned by Justice Venkatesh about the State’s intention to appeal Ponmudi’s acquittal, Luthra mentioned that the DVAC and State authorities were still “processing and examining it.”
In another related development, Justice Anand Venkatesh has taken cognizance of the acquittal orders of former Backward Class and Minority Welfare Minister B Valarmathi and current Rural Development Minister of Tamil Nadu, I. Periyasamy. Expressing his concerns, Justice Venkatesh remarked,
“It’s like I’ve opened a can of worms. Case after case, I’m becoming sick. The system has failed systematically. It’s becoming shocking. You can give any interpretation, but these are facts. I’m tired of looking at cases like this on a regular basis…It is an institutional problem. The system has failed. I do not know how much of this is going to help.”
Justice Venkatesh further commented on the DVAC’s changing stance, suggesting that the agency was becoming political and might be under pressure. He emphasized the need for a robust system in the State, stating,
“We have to have some sort of system. DVAC have become politicians. I’m not trying to say anything against the officers, I don’t know the type of pressure these officers have to go through.”
The court also observed patterns in the DVAC’s actions, noting that the agency often changed its stance following shifts in political power. The court described it as “strange and ironic” that the same Investigating Officer who filed the chargesheet would later, after further investigation, submit a counter affidavit negating the earlier findings.
The court lamented,
“It is, therefore, evident that after the change in power in the State in 2011, DVAC had, once again acted as the proverbial chameleon dancing to the tunes of the politicians in power. This is not the first time this Court has encountered this condemnable practice of the DVAC. There is a consistent pattern discernable in Suo Motu Crl.R.C.Nos.1480, 1481 and 1524 of 2023 as well. It is unfortunate that a premier investigation agency of the State has become a plaything in the hands of politicians.”
The court also criticized the Special Court for its handling of the cases, particularly in the case against Valarmathi. It was noted that the Special Court conducted a mini-trial, acting as a Chartered Accountant, and based its verdict largely on income tax returns, which should not be the sole basis for discharging an accused in a corruption case.
In the case against Periyasamy, the court highlighted the “discharge game” being played by the accused, with multiple petitions being filed to halt proceedings. The court expressed shock at the Special Court’s decision to entertain a petition under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, even though the provision did not deal with discharge.
Concluding its observations, the court stated that it would be failing in its constitutional duty if it did not invoke its suo motu powers. Notices have been issued to both parties, and the matter has been directed to be placed before the Chief Justice for further information.
Case Title: Suo Motu RC v Additional Superintendent of Police and others
Case No: Suo Motu Crl.R.C.No.1558 and 1559 of 2023