On Monday, the Supreme Court directed the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court to reconsider and determine which judge(s) should preside over the suo motu proceedings initiated in the previous year, aimed at reviving corruption cases against multiple Tamil Nadu politicians, including incumbent Ministers [Thiru KKSSR Ramachandran vs. State Rep by Additional Superintendent of Police and others].
The Supreme Court of India on Monday addressed the procedural nuances surrounding suo motu actions by judges, particularly in the context of a corruption case involving Tamil Nadu Revenue Minister KKSSR Ramachandran. This case has brought to the forefront the procedural intricacies and judicial discretion involved in the Indian legal system, especially regarding the roles of individual judges and the Chief Justice within High Courts.
The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra, deliberated on the actions of a Single Judge from the Madras High Court who initiated suo motu revision against the discharge of Minister Ramachandran in a corruption case. The apex court’s observation pointed towards a procedural oversight, noting that the matter should have ideally been presented to the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court before any order was passed. The Supreme Court ordered,
“…we deem it appropriate to say that the suo motu matter ie SMCRLRC No. 1480/2023 should be considered by the Hon’ble Chief Justice. He may either proceed to take up the matter himself or may assign it to a judge of the High Court, as he may consider appropriate. Thereafter, the matter may proceed on merits.”
This directive underscores the Chief Justice’s pivotal role as the master of the roster, emphasizing that all proceedings should ideally originate from the Chief Justice’s office. The Supreme Court remarked,
“So far as concurrence of the Chief Justice is concerned, considering that he is the master of the roster, all proceedings should ideally emanate from the office of the Chief Justice. In the matter in hand, the learned judge on 21.08.2023 ideally could have directed the Registry to obtain orders of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court to allot suo motu revision number. Instead, direction was issued to the Registry to allot suo motu revision number for the case being handled by the Hon’ble Judge.”
Also read- Supreme Court To Hear Case On Bihar’s Caste Survey In April (lawchakra.in)
The court further clarified that its order should not be interpreted as a commentary on the judges handling the suo motu cases. This case has also led to the disposal of related petitions, including those involving Ramachandran’s wife and Tamil Nadu Minister for Finance, Thangam Thennarasu.
The backdrop of this legal scrutiny involves allegations against Minister Ramachandran and his associates of accumulating wealth disproportionate to their known sources of income during his tenure as a minister from 2006 to 2011. The challenge to the suo motu cognizance taken by Justice Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court was based on the argument that prior approval from the Chief Justice was not secured for exercising suo motu jurisdiction in the revisional proceeding.
During the proceedings, the counsel for the ministers argued that the suo motu orders could wreak havoc, highlighting that no prior approval from the Chief Justice was obtained before these orders were passed. However, representatives for the High Court contended that approval was secured as per applicable rules. Justice Roy hinted at the procedural misstep by Justice Venkatesh, stating,
“The first time he (Chief Justice) saw it (file of the first suo motu order) was after (suo motu jurisdiction was exercised). He (Justice Anand Venkatesh) had said please number it (to Registry), not please number it after approval from the Chief Justice. He (Justice Anand) should not have done it, but we do not want to make a comment there.”
This case not only highlights the procedural aspects and the discretionary powers within the judiciary but also reflects on the broader implications of suo motu actions in the legal landscape. The Supreme Court’s handling of this matter underscores the delicate balance between judicial independence and procedural correctness, setting a precedent for future cases involving suo motu cognizance.
CASE DETAILS
CASE TITLE: THIRU. K.K.S.S.R. RAMACHANDRAN VERSUS STATE REP. BY: THE ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND ORS., SLP (Crl) Diary No. 3245/2024
Also read- Haryana’s Job Reservation Law Faces Supreme Court Scrutiny (lawchakra.in)
