Madras High Court is testing itself in suo motu revision against Ponmudy, says Justice N. Anand Venkatesh

Madras High Court begins final hearing on Forest Minister's acquittal in assets case, questioning transfer procedure.

The Madras High Court on Monday commenced the final hearing on a suo motu revision taken up by it in August 2023 against the acquittal of Forest Minister K. Ponmudy, his wife P. Visalatchi, and another person from a disproportionate assets case registered against them in 2002.

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh began hearing the arguments of Advocate General P.S. Raman for the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC), senior counsel N.R. Elango on behalf of the Minister, and advocate M. Santhanaraman on behalf of the High Court Registry.

The judge asked the A-G to assist the court on April 17 in finding out whether the Chief Justice, on the recommendation of two portfolio judges, could pass an administrative order transferring a criminal case from a sessions court in one district to another. Justice Venkatesh also wanted to know whether the decision taken by the Chief Justice would have to be ratified by the Full Court (a meeting of all judges of the High Court) and what should be the consequence if such a ratification had not been obtained.

The questions were raised since the suo motu revision was taken up after it was found that the trial in the 2002 case was transferred from Villupuram to Vellore in July 2022 on the basis of the then Chief Justice’s order. After the transfer, the Vellore court acquitted the Minister and others on June 28, 2023.

Justice Venkatesh told the counsel that the correctness of the procedure followed for the transfer was the quintessential issue to be decided in the suo motu revision. Making it clear that the attempt was not to point fingers at individuals but only to ascertain if the High Court, on its administrative side, had followed the procedure properly for transfer of the case, the judge said: “The entire exercise is of the High Court testing itself.”

“This is exactly where I need your assistance because all of us owe it to the institution. Ultimately. we must test the waters but at the same time, we should not be causing any damage to the institution because this case itself is very sensitive,” the judge told the counsel.