New Delhi: “Bizarre and startling”, “shocking and calculated attempt to manipulate and subvert the criminal justice system”, and “judicial proceedings reduced to a cruel joke” – it was with observations such as these, made since August, that Justice N. Anand Venkatesh of Madras High Court decided to revisit acquittals and discharges of six politicians by lower courts. The politicians are both from the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and opposition All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK).
In these orders, Justice Venkatesh has launched a crusade against all the stakeholders in the criminal justice system, including special courts for trying MPs and MLAs, as well as the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC).
Last month, Justice Venkatesh sent ripples in the judicial circles after he took suo motu cognizance of the acquittal of Tamil Nadu’s Higher Education Minister K. Ponmudy in a disproportionate assets case in June. Venkatesh’s order spoke of how the district judge, within four days, “marshaled the evidence of 172 prosecution witnesses and 381 documents and managed (or rather stage-managed) to deliver a 226-page testament/judgment acquitting all the accused”.
Ponmudi was the minister of transport and a member of the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly between May 1996 and September 2001. During this period, it was alleged that he acquired several properties and other resources, all disproportionate to his known sources of income, in his name as well as in the name of his wife and sons. An FIR was registered against him, his wife, mother-in-law and friends, in March 2002.
ThePrint has seen all the orders passed by Justice Venkatesh. Most case-related details have been taken from these orders. Where media reports have been relied on, the same has been indicated.
The observations made on Ponmudi’s case were just the beginning of Justice Venkatesh’s crusade against the workings of the criminal justice system, when it comes to cases of alleged corruption against politicians.
The Madras HC judge has since instituted suo motu revision petitions against five more discharges and acquittals involving five other Tamil Nadu politicians — Revenue Minister K.K.S.S.R. Ramachandran, Finance Minister Thangam Thennarasu, former Chief Minister O. Panneerselvam, Rural Development Minister I. Periyasamy and former Social Welfare Minister B. Valarmathi.
As a first-generation lawyer, Justice Venkatesh began his legal practice in October 1993. According to media reports and his biodata on the Madras HC website, he was elevated to the bench as an additional judge in June 2018. He is a “music lover”, sings himself too sometimes, and takes a keen interest in sports, particularly cricket, having won the ‘Man of the Match’ award in a match between judges and lawyers of the high court in March 2021.
Since becoming a judge in 2018, Justice Venkatesh has made headlines several times in the past too, the most prominent instance being when he was lauded in March 2021 for his “refreshing candor” for admitting that he needs to break his “own preconceived notions” while deciding a protection plea by a same-sex couple.
According to reports, last month, Justice Venkatesh has now decided to evaluate all judgments passed so far by special courts for MP/MLA cases across Tamil Nadu. He is, therefore, just getting started.
In all the orders passed by him in the cases of the six politicians, Justice Venkatesh has exercised his powers under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPc) 1973, and Article 227 (power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court) of the Constitution of India.
Section 397 (of the CrPc) allows the high court or the sessions court to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal court for satisfying itself about the “correctness, legality or propriety” of any order. This provision allows the court to essentially call for records to exercise the powers of “revision” of a lower court order.
Section 401 defines the high court’s “powers of revision”. The Supreme Court has explained that a revision is different from an appeal against an order. According to the apex court, an appeal allows the court to appreciate the evidence, and reach its own conclusions of the evidence considered by the trial court.
On the other hand, revisional powers belong to the supervisory jurisdiction of a superior court. While exercising these powers, the court has to confine itself to the legality and propriety of the findings, and has to look at whether the lower court has kept itself within the bounds of the jurisdiction that it has. The apex court has also explained that Section 397 of the CrPC allows a high court to exercise the power of revision suo motu.
Meanwhile, Justice Venkatesh has also started facing pushback.
The first case
The first of such orders came from Justice Venkatesh on 10 August, while looking at the documents pertaining to the acquittal of Ponmudy and his wife. In the order, he pointed out that the final arguments in the case were submitted on 23 June this year, and within four days, the district judge managed to write a 226-page judgment acquitting the accused on 28 June.
Since Justice Venkatesh holds the portfolio for cases relating to MPs and MLAs, he called for the entire records of the case from the district court. “On going through the same the doubts entertained by this Court on the strange procedure followed in this case was proved right,” he then wrote.
The judge noted that the high court administration had transferred the case from the principal district judge, Villupuram, to principal district judge, Vellore, in July 2022, towards the very end of the trial. This transfer from one district court to another came after the Villupuram judge requested the high court’s permission to hear the case on four days, which were court holidays, and try for expeditious disposal of the case.
Taking note of the speed at which the Vellore judge then dealt with the case, Justice Venkatesh observed, “This unique feat of industry on the part of the Principal District Judge, Vellore can find few parallels, and it may well be said is a feat that even judicial mortals in constitutional courts can only dream of,” the court observed, adding that two days after the judgment, the district judge “retired and cheerfully rode off into the sunset”.
The HC judge asserted that the “narrative reveals a shocking and calculated attempt to manipulate and subvert the criminal justice system”. He said that there was “not even a speck of legality” in what happened in the case, starting with the transfer.
Justice Venkatesh raised several questions in his order, from the manner in which the case was transferred, to the manner in which it was disposed of in record time. He then took suo motu cognizance of the acquittal, and issued notice, while initiating revision petitions against the lower court’s order.
The revision proceedings will examine whether the lower court’s orders were validly passed and whether they should be set aside.
‘Something is rotten’
The Ponmudi case was just the beginning of Justice Venkatesh’s crusade.
The same month, on 23 August, the judge took suo motu cognizance of two more acquittals. This time it was a trial court’s clean chit to Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) ministers Thangam Thennarasu and K.K.S.S.R. Ramachandran in two disproportionate assets cases.
Justice Venkatesh “smelt a rat” in the manner in which the special court acquitted the two ministers. Quoting Hamlet’s “Something is rotten in the State of Denmark”, the judge asserted that “something is very rotten in the Special Court for MP/MLA Cases at Srivilluputhur”.
A Srivilliputhur special court for MP/MLA cases had acquitted finance minister Thangam Thennarasu and his wife in December last year, and had discharged revenue minister Ramachandran, his wife and a friend in July this year.
The high court said that the discharge orders revealed a “well-orchestrated pattern”. In both cases, the special court took cognizance of the final reports in the case in 2013/14, discharge applications were filed by the accused, and the cases were adjourned for several years till 2021.
“In 2021, the political fortunes in the State smiled at the main accused who regained their positions as Ministers in the State Cabinet,” Justice Venkatesh said.
The August order of Venkatesh noted that a few months later, the state prosecution then offered to conduct further investigation, and filed a closure report “tailored to support the grounds for discharge”. The special court then accepted the closure reports and discharged the accused, as recorded in the high court order.
As in Ponmudy’s case, here too he has initiated revision proceedings and will examine whether the lower court’s orders were validly passed.
‘Must be eliminated by the roots’
The cases against Ponmudy, Ramachandran and Thenarasu were registered in 2002, 2011 and 2012 during the AIADMK rule.
However, Justice Venkatesh now wanted to find out “whether this modus operandi was of recent origin or had a precedent elsewhere which later replicated itself in several other cases”. This, he said, was “important since these questionable practices, like cancer, cannot be dealt with at the level of tentacles, and must be eliminated by the roots”.
On 31 August, Justice Venkatesh went back a decade to trace “a similar pattern” in a case before the chief judicial magistrate (special judge), Sivagangai, in a case against former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister O. Panneerselvam and his family members in a disproportionate assets case. Panneerselvam and his family were discharged in the case by a trial court in December 2012.
The case dates back to Panneerselvam’s tenure as revenue minister (2001-2006) and chief minister (2001-2002). The case was registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 against him in 2006, when DMK came to power, purportedly on the basis of preliminary inquiry by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC).
The chargesheet filed in 2009 alleged that the accused persons had accumulated wealth which was 374 percent disproportionate to the known sources of their income, without any satisfactory explanation. The court took cognizance of the first chargesheet in 2009.
The high court noted that while the case was pending before the magistrate, the AIADMK returned to power in the State and Panneerselvam was back in the helm of affairs as the finance minister. The accused then filed a petition under Section 173 of the CrPC, asking for further investigation in the case, a provision that is usually utilized by the magistrate or the police, according to the the high court order.
The magistrate allowed the petition, despite the fact that the case had already been transferred to a special court.
While the propriety of the magistrate’s orders was being questioned, the DVAC filed a final report after further investigation, giving a clean chit to Panneerselvam and his family.
What followed was a series of actions that the high court found “bizarre and startling”, including the fact that both the police as well as the public prosecutor claimed that the earlier chargesheet had become “infructuous”.
The modus operandi, Justice Venkatesh said, “is all too obvious”.
The HC judge observed, “At the centre of the plot is the DVAC. When a political party comes to power in Tamil Nadu, DVAC swoops down on the opposition and clamps down on cases of corruption. However, no prosecution for corruption ends in five years, which is the lifespan of an elected government…. Invariably, opposition is voted back to power and DVAC, like puppets in Muppets show, will have to perform a different tune in tandem with its political masters. The strategy is to get DVAC to do a further investigation, the sole objective of which is to further the cause of the accused.”
In this story, the special courts “fall in line and in their keenness to ape lady justice accept the bait of the DVAC without any serious probe,” discharging the accused, Justice Venkatesh observed. “The solemnity of a judicial proceeding before the Court is reduced to a cruel joke,” he asserted.
The court then instituted the suo motu revision proceedings, while acknowledging the fact that 10 years had passed since the magistrate’s order.
The court has issued notice to the public prosecutor, as well as the accused, and will now hear the parties on whether the lower court’s orders were validly passed.
However, it asserted that the facts before it were “shocking and disturbing” and disclosed “grave illegality at every stage which shows a well-orchestrated plan”. This, he said, was a case where “a political personage has maneuvered the DVAC, the State Government and the Court to ensure that the trial against him was derailed”.
‘Impeccable honest Government servant’
Continuing his crackdown on politicians, Justice Venkatesh issued two similar orders earlier this month on 8 September. This time, he took up two suo motu revision petitions against the discharge of Rural Development Minister I. Periyasamy of DMK from a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and former Social Welfare Minister B. Valarmathi of AIADMK in a disproportionate assets case.
Periyasamy was discharged by an Additional Special Court for MP/MLA cases in Chennai in March this year. The case was filed by the DVAC for having allotted a Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB) plot to one C. Ganesan, an inspector of police in the Special Branch-Criminal Investigation Department (SBCID, core cell), Chennai, under the state government’s discretionary quota, when Periyasamy served as housing minister in March 2008.
According to media reports, Ganesan was deputed as the personal security officer (PSO) to the former Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi when he was serving as inspector in the security wing of the SBCID. The FIR was filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, with the allegation that he was allotted the plot under the “impeccable honest Government servant” discretionary quota, on the basis of false claims, and for “unfair pecuniary advantage”, according to the high court order.
Similarly, Valarmathi, a social welfare minister in the AIADMK government from 2001 and 2006, was discharged by a special court in Chennai in December 2012 in a disproportionate assets case.
On 14 September, Justice Venkatesh rejected a plea filed by the DVAC and Ponmudy, demanding transfer of the case from him, since he had already made certain strong remarks in his earlier order. He refused to recuse himself from hearing the suo motu revision petition against Ponmudy’s acquittal, observing, “It is a mystery as to why the mighty State is shooting a plea of bias at this court from the shoulders of the accused”.
Last month, DMK organisation secretary R.S. Bharathi alleged that the judge was acting with “malafide intention” and that he was selecting cases on a “pick and choose” basis.
The judge is well aware of the criticism against him for picking up these cases, but refused to initiate any action against those who have been criticising him.
“Those who cannot tolerate criticism are unfit to hold public office,” the judge was quoted in the media as telling advocate R. Krishnamurthy, when the latter urged the court to initiate suo motu contempt of court proceedings against Bharathi.
(Edited by Poulomi Banerjee)
Also read: ‘Self-respect’ marriages in Tamil Nadu don’t need public solemnisation, says SC