Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Madras High Court has set aside a 2012 order of discharge to former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister O Panneerselvam from the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) and his family in a disproportionate assets case.

Exercising Suo Motu power of criminal revision, Justice N Anand Venkatesh noted "shocking and disturbing" facts, disclosing a "grave illegality at every stage" in a "well-orchestrated plan" by the Department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC), the state government and the court to ensure that the trial against the accused was derailed.

The court issued notice to Paneerselvam and his family members seeking their personal appearance on September 27.

Observing that the public confidence in courts is a hallmark of the Rule of law, the bench said, "Citizens must never get the impression that our courts are the playfields of the rich and the powerful".

In the case, the court noted the allegation in the final report was that the accused persons had accumulated wealth which was 374% times disproportionate to the known sources of income for which no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming. After three years of investigation, the IO examined 272 witnesses and collected 235 documents and filed a final report. The court took cognisance and issued summons in 2009.

Afterwards, AIADMK to which the accused belonged to returned to power. The CJM, Theni "mysteriously and curiously" kept the case files, despite assigning of the case to a special court at Madurai. In the meantime, the accused themselves filed an application for further investigation, in a move unknown to law, which was allowed by the CJM, Theni. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the special court, Madurai, which found the CJM acted illegally. The accused then moved the HC, which allowed their plea to transfer the case to CJM, Sivaganga. The DVAC, thus, took up further investigation and presented its report after taking opinion from public prosecutor, Advocate General, before the TN Assembly Speaker who after examining the records revoked the sanction for prosecution, on recording "so called satisfaction" which was completely "sham exercise".

"The conclusions in the order of the Speaker leads this court to ponder as to whether Panneerselvam was under the impression that the special court at Sivaganga was temporarily functioning out of the Speaker’s Chamber at Fort St George," the judge said. 

The Speaker then in 2012 ordered DVAC to file a final report and a compliance report. 

"It is, therefore, manifestly clear that the so-called further investigation report was nothing but a product of a diktat from the Government to the DVAC to terminate the prosecution. The DVAC toed the line and decided to do the Government’s dirty work," the court said.

The Investigating Officer filed a final report wiping out the previous investigation "to free accused and his family from the clutches of the criminal law".

"To say that the cognizance taken by the court on a final report had become infructuous on account of a supplementary charge sheet under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C is quite simply shocking. That the CJM, Sivaganga has actually accepted this incredible legal proposition is a reflection of the abysmal depths to which our special courts have sunk," the bench said.

Thus, the court said, the modus operandi is now all too obvious. At the centre of the plot is the DVAC. When a political party comes to power in the State of Tamil Nadu the DVAC swoops down on the opposition and clamps cases of corruption. However, no prosecution for corruption ends in five years which is the life span of an elected government in the State. 

Invariably, the opposition is voted back to power and the DVAC, like the puppets in the Muppets show, will have to perforce sing a different tune in tandem with its political masters. The strategy is to get the DVAC to do a further investigation the sole objective of which is to further the cause of the accused. In this way, self-serving investigation reports giving clean chits to the accused are presented as a fiat accompli under the garb of further investigation. The special courts, for reasons best known, fall in line and in their keenness to ape lady justice accept the bait of the DVAC without any serious probe. 

In this way, the accused is discharged, and the solemnity of a judicial proceeding before the Court is reduced to a cruel joke. These tactics are usually resorted to immediately upon the party coming to power so as to ensure that no appeal is filed during the rest of the tenure, and by the time the Government changes any challenge would be hit by limitation. 

"This is a pattern that I have seen in this case as well as the other cases. Whatever be their radical political differences, the accused political personages across party lines appear to be united in their endeavour to thwart and subvert the criminal justice system in this State," the judge said.

Holding that no rule of limitation can be put against the High Court in exercising its suo motu power of revision, the judge said it is clear that where the High Court fails to exercise its powers despite noticing glaring illegalities, it would be causing miscarriage of justice by perpetuating the illegalities. In the context of offences like the Prevention of Corruption Act, the duty of the High Court to ensure that there is no subversion of the criminal law is paramount, the court said.

Case Title: Suo Motu Case

Click here to read order