Justice Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court recently made the decision not to recuse himself from hearing a revision petition concerning the acquittal of Minister K Ponmudi. This decision was in response to requests from Senior Counsel Sidharth Luthra and NR Elango, representing the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) of Tamil Nadu and K Ponmudi, respectively.
The senior lawyers had previously articulated their concerns, suggesting that while the matter of the court’s suo motu revisional jurisdiction remains to be settled, Justice Venkatesh should,
“in the interest of the principles of judicial propriety,”
recuse from the case. Luthra further elaborated on his reservations, stating that Justice Venkatesh’s order, which issued a notice to Ponmudi and other respondents, contained strong observations. These, according to Luthra, indicated that the judge had “pre-determined” the issue. He also mentioned that the court’s suo motu revision had “thwarted” the State government’s chances of filing an appeal against the special court’s acquittal verdict for Ponmudi.
Delving deeper into the case’s history, in August of the same year, Justice Venkatesh, who also holds responsibility for special courts dealing with cases of MPs and MLAs, initiated a suo motu revision against an order. This particular order, delivered by special judge N Vasanthaleela, had acquitted Ponmudi in a disproportionate wealth case in June. Highlighting his concerns, Justice Venkatesh remarked that there was something
“seriously amiss”
in the transfer order, which was administratively passed by the Madras High Court, leading to the trial’s transfer to Vasanthaleela.
This unfolding scenario underscores the intricacies and challenges within the judicial process. It emphasizes the importance of transparency, fairness, and the unwavering commitment to the principles of judicial propriety. The case also serves as a testament to the judiciary’s dedication to maintaining the integrity and trustworthiness of the legal system, even when confronted with contentious requests for recusal.
