New Delhi: A missing order from the official records of a case pending at the Madras High Court has left the Supreme Court in a dilemma.
Given on 21 August, the said order had quashed money-laundering charges against former Tamil Nadu Director General of Police (DGP) M.S. Jaffar Sait, on the ground that the corruption case—the basis of the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) case against him—was set aside in 2019.
Notably, the ED had instituted proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) against Sait in 2020, a year after the predicate offence FIR naming him was dismissed.
A week after the 21 August order, a new HC bench relisted Sait’s petition for quashing of the money laundering case against him. The notice uploaded on the HC website show that Sait’s matter was fixed for a re-hearing with the consent of the two parties (Sait and ED).
Sait rushed to the Supreme Court against the HC’s sudden U-turn and questioned its step to re-examine his case. Taking up his matter in the first week of September, a SC bench led by Justice Abhay Oka sought a report from the Madras High Court registrar general.
The report received and perused Monday showed that on 21 August, Sait’s petition seeking quashing of proceedings was indeed allowed. However, the order that recorded the proceedings was not available.
Anguished at the developments in the case, Justice Oka observed: “What is this practice? This is completely wrong.”
The judge voiced the tricky situation the court has been left to handle—how to restore the 21 August order when there is nothing on record.
Sait’s counsel Sidharth Luthra expressed his disillusionment as well. “I don’t want to complain, but what has upset me more is that now the case status (on the HC’s website) does not show the 21 August hearing. It is as if no business took place (on that date),” he submitted to the bench.
Sounding unusually bothered about the awkward situation it has been left to deal with, the SC bench told ED’s counsel, Zoheb Hossain, that if Sait’s version about the quashing of the predicate offence is correct, then proceedings against him under the PMLA have to go.
The court deferred the hearing to Friday, when Hossain said he would like to get clear instructions about the status of the predicate offence.
Justice Oka’s bench indicated that it would like to avoid giving its remarks on the controversy and told Luthra and Hossain that it might allow Sait’s petition simply on the ground that the predicate offence no longer existed.
Also Read: Thumbs-up emoji cost a railway constable his job. Now, Madras HC has come to his rescue
Case history
Sait, his wife, and daughter were named in a corruption case in an FIR that was registered against him in July 2011. The FIR accused them of being a beneficiary of illegal allotment of plots by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Sait alleged that the case was lodged at the behest of an officer, who worked in the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) and was found involved in the theft of sensitive data.
The former DGP contended that the officer had a personal grudge since he had unearthed the racket that resulted in the latter’s arrest. The complaint was an act of personal vendetta, Sait said.
According to Sait, the FIR was registered in contravention of guidelines of the vigilance manual, without conducting any preliminary or detailed inquiry. He said the allegations stated that his wife was allotted a housing plot under the government discretionary quota, whereas she had purchased the land by paying an enhanced price fixed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.
In September 2013, the DVAC filed a chargesheet against Sait and his family members, apart from four other persons. The list of accused also included the minister in charge of the department of housing and urban development during whose tenure the alleged unauthorised allotment had taken place.
While the chargesheet was filed without obtaining the requisite sanction for Sait’s prosecution, the Ministry of Home Affairs in November 2013 rejected the prosecution’s sanction request against him. The rejection was after the Centre fully examined the material placed before it and according to the extant rules and procedure.
This rejection order was placed before the trial court where the case was pending four years later. Subsequently, Sait moved a quashing petition before the Madras High Court in 2019.
In May that year, the HC allowed the petition and quashed the DVAC case against Sait in view of the fact that Centre, his appointing authority, had declined to grant sanction for his prosecution. An appeal against the said order before the Supreme Court was dismissed.
Months later, the HC quashed the charges vis-à-vis another accused, who worked as executive engineer of the state housing board at the time of the alleged allotment scam. It gave pertinent findings that said no loss was caused to the housing board by the allotment of plots in question. An appeal against the said order, too, was not entertained.
In June 2020, the ED registered its case against Sait and others and issued a provisional attachment order against his wife and three more persons. This attachment order, according to Sait’s petition in the Supreme Court, was quashed in May 2024.
Earlier this year, the Madras HC quashed the ED proceedings against three accused, following which Sait approached the judicial forum for similar relief.
HC proceedings
According to his pleadings, filed by advocate Shankar before the Supreme Court, a division bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and V. Sivagnanam in the Madras HC heard his matter on 16 August.
On 21 August, the HC allowed Sait’s petition by quashing the ED case and the case status was accordingly updated on the eCourt portal. News about Sait’s relief was also published in print and news media.
Two days later, Sait’s counsel received an intimation from the HC registry, asking him to appear on the same day before the division bench. Upon his appearance, the lawyer was told that the matter has again been posted for hearing on 28 August.
During the hearing, the bench that had previously allowed Sait’s petition made contrary observations, which Sait’s petition said was in total conflict of the law. As the matter was posted for further hearing to 3 September, Sait moved an application in the HC requesting his case be transferred to any other division bench.
Even though Sait swiftly moved the top court as well, the HC bench heard his matter on 3 September and observed that it was entitled to re-hear the case, as it “found something” to be heard again. It went on to reserve its judgment.
On 6 September, the Supreme Court decided to examine Sait’s claim and stayed the proceedings before the HC, restraining it from making a pronouncement. It then asked for a report from the registrar general in a sealed cover.
“Both statements (mentioned in the report) indicate the matter was allowed. But the only question is the order is not available,” Justice Oka observed Monday. He pointed out that the top court could not even ask the judges to sign the order “that is not available” now.
“We would have to say that what has been done is absolutely wrong and then the subsequent orders (of the HC) will go. But if we have to restore the earlier order, which is not typed and signed…,” the judge said, appearing perplexed.
When the ED counsel informed that the predicate offence against Sait was quashed for want of sanction, Justice Oka observed that the PMLA case would not survive in the absence of the base offence.
Justice Oka said the court cannot even suggest to the HC to sign the order that is missing and would resolve the matter on merits to avoid any controversy. The court agreed with Luthra’s submission that the HC division bench heard the matter on 21 August, as it was reflected in the sealed cover report.
The judge then asked both sides (ED and Sait) to give a confirmed submission that the predicate offence against Sait stood quashed.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: Supreme Court letting states subclassify SCs-STs. I call it ‘Constitution amendment by stealth’