Observing that citizens must never get the impression of courts being playfields for the rich and the powerful and also criticising the Directorate of Vigilance of Anti-Corruption (DVAC) sleuths for acting like “puppets in The Muppet Show” depending upon the political party in power, the Madras High Court has decided to test the correctness of all judgements passed so far by special courts for MP/MLA cases, across the State.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh on Thursday, said he had begun examining all special court verdicts due to complaints of many corruption cases against legislators having been withdrawn or watered down, during every change of regime in the State. The judge disclosed this before taking up a suo motu revision against the 2012 withdrawal of prosecution against former Chief Minister O. Panneerselvam and his family members.
The judge said, Mr. Panneerselvam’s case had led to the devising of a modus operandi, which was subsequently followed by incumbent Revenue Minister K.K.S.S.R. Ramachandran and Finance Minister Thangam Thennarasu to get discharged from the disproportionate assets cases against them. “As the judge in charge of MP/MLA cases in this State, this court has a Constitutional duty to ensure that the streams of criminal justice are kept pure and unsullied,” he wrote.
Justice Venkatesh said, the records in the case against Mr. Panneerselvam, prima facie, reveal a shocking tale of how the criminal justice system was “subverted by the collective effort” of all stakeholders to ensure that the accused were released from the clutches of law.
The DVAC had registered the case in 2006, when the DMK returned to power after five years of AIADMK rule, and filed a charge-sheet too, in 2009, before the Theni Chief Judicial Magistrate. The charge sheet was filed on July 30, 2009 after examining 272 witnesses, collecting 232 documents and on finding that the former Chief Minister and his family members had amassed wealth 374% times disproportionate to their known sources of income. On June 9, 2009, the then Speaker R. Avudaiappan too, had granted sanction for prosecution. The Special Court took cognisance of the charge-sheet and issued summons to the accused.
‘Something amiss’
On May 3, 2011, just a fortnight before the AIADMK returned to power in the State, a government order was issued constituting a special court in Madurai for the Prevention of Corruption Act cases. “Mysteriously and very curiously,” the Theni CJM continued to hear the case against Mr. Panneerselvam, who assumed charge as Finance Minister on May 16, 2011. Despite the constitution of the special court, the Theni CJM even ordered further investigations on October 4, 2011.
Justice Venkatesh said, ordering further investigations on the basis of a petition taken out by the accused was unknown to law because such a course could be followed only at the instance of the investigating agency or the court. He also said: “The records reveal that the aforesaid order for further investigation was not wholly borne out by the CJM’s apparent lack of knowledge in criminal law. There was clearly something seriously amiss.”
He also said, the Theni CJM did not even have any authority to pass such an order after the constitution of the special court. Yet, the order was passed and then the case was “quietly” transferred to the Special Court in Madurai only on October 14, 2011. The special court “smelt a rat and obviously realised that something was seriously amiss.” It refused to return the case documents to the DVAC for conducting further investigations, the judge said.
Transfer of case
Finding that the special court had “seen through their game,” the accused person rushed to the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in 2011 accusing the special court of being biased, and got the case transferred to the Sivanganga CJM. “A learned judge of this court thought it fit to transfer the case on a request made by the accused even without examining whether the grounds for transfer were bonafide. Judicial propriety demands that I say no more,” Justice Venkatesh wrote.
“By this time, the State Government, of which A1 (Mr. Panneerselvam) was an integral part, had swung into action and was working at breakneck speed to ensure that the case was short circuited at the earliest,” the judge said, and highlighted how a new investigating officer prepared a report giving a clean chit to all the accused. “In its eagerness to please its political masters, the DVAC unwittingly filed the report first before the government and not the court,” he added.
“To make the plot fool proof,” the government, on its part, quickly sought and obtained a legal opinion from the Advocate General as well as the State Public Prosecutor in October 2012 on the report submitted by the DVAC, and those documents were placed before Speaker P. Dhanapal who, on October 27, 2012, revoked the sanction for prosecution granted by his predecessor, even though such a revocation was impermissible in law, the judge said.
‘Speaker virtually acted as a judge’
Extracting the Speaker’s order where he had stated that he had examined the evidence collected by the DVAC and come to a conclusion that the materials did not show commission of any offence, the judge said, the Speaker had virtually acted as a judge. “The Speaker, in other words, decided to bury the doctrine of separation of powers in the precincts of St. Marys Church by playing the role of the special court sitting in the legislative chamber at Fort St. George,” he commented.
The Speaker’s order was communicated to the DVAC on October 28, 2012. “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 judge said and lamented that the Sivanga CJM too, had discharged Mr. Panneerselvam and his family members on the basis of this report.
“This is a reflection of the abysmal depths to which our special courts have sunk... The facts of this case are shocking and disturbing. They disclose a grave illegality at every stage which shows a well-orchestrated plan. This is a case where a political personage has manoeuvred the DVAC, the State Government and the court to ensure that the trial against him was derailed,” the judge said and ordered notices, returnable by September 27, to the DVAC as well as the accused on the suo motu revision.
