Disproportionate Assets Case: Supreme Court Stays Trial Against TN Minister Durai Murugan

The bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order while hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Murugan, who currently serves as the Water Resources Minister in the government led by Chief Minister MK Stalin.

“There shall be no further proceedings until the next date of hearing. Issue notice returnable on April 20,” the Court directed, effectively halting the trial before the Special Court.

Murugan has challenged a recent judgment of the Madras High Court, which had set aside his discharge in the case and directed the trial court to frame charges and proceed with the matter. Alongside the SLP, the Court also issued notice on an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Appearing for Murugan, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi sought an interim stay on the trial, arguing that the High Court erred in interfering with the discharge order. He pointed out that Murugan had previously been granted similar protection in another case concerning a different check period, and therefore deserved parity in the present matter.

Addressing the delay in approaching the apex court, Singhvi submitted that the SLP was filed in February 2026 against an April 2025 High Court judgment due to compelling personal circumstances. He informed the Bench that Murugan, aged 87, had recently suffered a hip fracture, which contributed to the delay.

Accepting the submissions at this stage, the Supreme Court granted interim protection and posted the matter for further hearing on April 20, 2026.

The case pertains to allegations that Murugan, during his tenure as Minister for Public Works and Forest Department between 1996 and 2001, amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. It is alleged that properties were acquired not only in his name but also in the names of his wife and son.

The State had filed a chargesheet under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, accusing him of criminal misconduct.

However, the Special Court had earlier discharged Murugan, accepting his contention that the prosecution had wrongly clubbed properties belonging to other accused with his own. He had argued that he could not be held liable for assets independently acquired by others and maintained that he had not acquired any property during the relevant check period. He had also claimed that the case was politically motivated.

The State had challenged this discharge before the High Court, which reversed the Special Court’s order. The High Court held that the issues raised by Murugan required detailed appreciation of evidence and could not be adjudicated at the stage of discharge. It had observed that at the stage of framing charges, courts are required to proceed on the basis of the prosecution’s material without assessing its probative value. The High Court further found that the Special Court had erred in discharging the accused without framing charges and without affording the prosecution an opportunity to substantiate its case.

Terming the discharge order as “perverse,” the High Court had held that the material on record disclosed a prima facie case and warranted a full-fledged trial. It had accordingly directed the trial court to frame charges and proceed expeditiously, ideally within six months.