Former T.N. Minister Ponmudy disproportionate assets case | Supreme Court grants exemption from surrender

The Supreme Court on January 12 granted exemption to former Tamil Nadu Minister K. Ponmudy and his wife P. Visalakshi from surrendering in a disproportionate assets case.

The Supreme Court on January 12 granted exemption to former Tamil Nadu Minister K. Ponmudy and his wife P. Visalakshi from surrendering in a disproportionate assets case.

Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, in a chamber sitting, granted the interim relief to the couple, whose special leave petition against their conviction and three-year sentence in the case by the Madras High Court in December is pending admission in the apex court. The couple were represented by senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Luthra.

The High Court had reversed the trial court’s decision to acquit them in April 2016. The High Court had, however, granted 30 days’ time for the couple to surrender before the Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act cases in Villupuram so that they could approach the Supreme Court, in the meantime, challenging their conviction and sentence.

Why does K. Ponmudy face disqualification as a legislator after his conviction? | Explained

The present case relates to the charge of the former Minister and his wife having amassed wealth disproportionate to their known sources of income when he held the portfolio of Higher Education and Mines during the DMK regime between 2006 and 2011. The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) had registered the case after the AIADMK came to power in May 2011.

The petitioners have argued that the High Court had wrongly overturned the well-detailed acquittal by the trial court. The petitioners said that the High Court erred in clubbing the assets of Ponmudy and his wife to determine the “property disproportionate”.

“It is prima facie apparent that his wife, who is not a public servant, is well-qualified, is a separate entity/individual who holds several assets and is running companies having separate sources of income even prior to the check period,” their petition argued.