Pending corruption cases numbering 2,423 across Tamil Nadu “cannot be viewed as an ordinary workload” for Principal District and Sessions Judges, the Madras High Court has said, asking the State to examine more special courts.
Madurai: What began as one accused’s plea for a speedy trial has become a State-wide direction. The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has asked the Tamil Nadu government to examine, in consultation with the High Court, the need for exclusive special courts under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in the 30 districts that do not have one, after reports placed before it showed 2,423 pending corruption cases across the State as on June 30, 2026 [A. Shahul Hameed v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.].
Justice B. Pugalendhi pronounced the order on November 10, 2026. He also directed the Registrar General to follow up on a pending administrative proposal to designate Additional Sessions Courts as Special Courts, and told the State to provide infrastructure, staff and prosecutors for these courts.
The five directions
The Court directed that: (i) the Registrar General follow up the proposal to designate Additional Sessions Courts as Special Courts so that workload is shared; (ii) the Government, in consultation with the High Court, examine the need for exclusive Special Courts in districts without one and act where warranted; (iii) the State extend infrastructure, staff and facilities to existing and new Special Courts; (iv) the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, with the Director of Prosecution, ensure adequate prosecutors; and (v) sessions judges give priority to these cases, hold day-to-day trials where practicable and record reasons whenever the statutory period is exceeded.
On the petitioner’s own case, it held that he “cannot be made to suffer on account of administrative arrangements or the workload of the trial Court” and directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, to make every endeavour to conclude the trial within six months, without unnecessary adjournments and subject to the parties’ cooperation. The Registry was told to send the order to all Principal District Judges and Special Court presiding officers in the State.
The Thoothukudi trial
The petitioner, A. Shahul Hameed, is the sole accused in Spl.C. No. 13 of 2025 before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Thoothukudi, where he faces trial under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 167 IPC. He moved the High Court under Section 528 BNSS seeking a direction for a speedy trial.
His counsel told the Court that charges were framed in 2023, but only two witnesses had been examined in three years, even though Section 4(4) of the Act requires day-to-day trial as far as practicable and an endeavour to finish within two years. The allegations against him remain to be tested at trial, and the High Court expressed no view on the merits; he is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The Additional Public Prosecutor explained that the case was first before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi, and was moved to the Principal District and Sessions Court under the High Court’s administrative proceedings of May 29, 2025. That court, he said, has nearly 80 corruption cases pending. The Principal District Judge, in a report called for by the High Court, put the figure at 70 and sought six months to conclude the petitioner’s trial.
From one petition to a State-wide issue
Relying on a First Bench order issuing directions for time-bound POCSO trials, the petitioner’s counsel urged similar directions for corruption cases. Justice Pugalendhi agreed that the facts disclosed “a larger issue” and suo motu impleaded the Home Secretary, the Director of Prosecution and the Registrar General, calling for district-wise data.
The Registrar General reported 2,423 pending cases in Tamil Nadu and 61 in Puducherry, a total of 2,484. Exclusive Special Courts exist in only eight districts and were upgraded to the District Judge cadre by G.O.Ms. No. 87 dated February 18, 2026. In the other 30 districts, Principal District and Sessions Judges hear these cases along with their regular work. The Court noted that the transfer of cases from Chief Judicial Magistrates followed the BNSS, which removed the cadre of Assistant Sessions Judge.
“The pendency of 2,423 cases throughout the State, as on 30.06.2026, cannot be viewed as an ordinary workload to be dealt with as an additional responsibility by the Principal District and Sessions Judges.”
Section 3 of the Act allows Special Judges to be appointed from Sessions Judges or Additional Sessions Judges, the Court pointed out, and the legislature had not confined the role to Principal District Judges. The choice of only eight districts for exclusive courts needed “a uniform and objective assessment” based on pendency, age of cases, cases at trial stage, fresh institution and judicial strength, it said.
“Prolonged pendency of such cases neither serves the public interest nor does it advance the interests of the accused. While the prosecution is entitled to a fair opportunity to establish its case, the accused is equally entitled to have the proceedings concluded within a reasonable time.”
“The responsibility to ensure this does not rest with the judiciary alone. The State Government also has a corresponding responsibility to provide the necessary infrastructure, staff and prosecuting personnel.”
Why the order matters
Section 4(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act sets a two-year target for corruption trials, but the order recognises that a deadline is only as good as the courts asked to meet it. By treating an individual speedy-trial plea as a window into State-wide capacity, the High Court has placed the burden on both the High Court administration and the State government to match judicial resources with the statutory mandate.
The order also links speedy trial to fairness for both sides: delay hurts the public interest in prosecuting corruption and the accused’s right to a timely verdict. Its reading of Section 3, that Additional Sessions Judges can serve as Special Judges, offers an immediate way to spread the load while new courts are considered.
Case Title: A. Shahul Hameed v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. [Crl.OP(MD) No. 11066 of 2026]
Bench: Justice B. Pugalendhi, Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)
Date of Order: November 10, 2026 (reserved on August 7, 2026)
Appearances: Advocate L. Shaji Chellan for the petitioner; Additional Public Prosecutor A. Robinson for R1 and R3; Government Advocate S. Sivasubramanian for R2; Advocate D. Venkatesh for R4