The conviction of senior Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) functionary K. Ponmudy, leading to his losing his position in the Tamil Nadu Cabinet, is a rare instance of a serving Minister being found guilty of corruption when his own party is in power. Any verdict that punishes tainted public servants and dislodges them from office should be seen as salutary. In Ponmudy’s case, one will have to await the outcome of his expected appeal in the Supreme Court, which will have to decide whether to uphold his acquittal by the trial court or its reversal by the Madras High Court. As of now, he and his wife have been given a sentence, suspended for 30 days, of three years in prison and a fine of ₹50 lakh, for holding unexplained assets of ₹1.72 crore. The case dates back to his stint in the DMK ministry from 2006-2011, and the investigation and prosecution were conducted under an All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam regime. Ponmudy is also under scrutiny by the Enforcement Directorate which is probing the money-laundering aspect of an accusation that he gave illegal licences to his son and relatives for red sand mining. He is the second Minister to lose his portfolio after V. Senthil Balaji, who is in jail in another money-laundering case.
A key aspect of his appeal would be whether the court was right in reversing the trial judge’s finding that Ponmudy and his wife P. Visalakshi should be treated as assessees independent of each other and that vigilance investigators erred in clubbing their incomes to demonstrate that their combined income and expenditure did not account for about 65% of the assets standing in their names. Justice G. Jayachandran has questioned the claim that Ms. Visalakshi had independent sources of business and agricultural income and criticised the trial judge for accepting belatedly filed tax returns containing “bloated income”. The judge’s view that a mere income claim cannot be accepted without actual sales and profit figures for businesses run by her appears reasonable. He has upheld the prosecution’s expert witnesses who assessed her agricultural income, based on cultivable land holdings, at a far lower level than the income she had claimed in her returns. For the ruling DMK, the conviction of one of its deputy general secretaries at a time when it is facing a barrage of corruption charges, is an undoubted political setback. The party will be hoping that Ponmudy gets relief from the Supreme Court in the form of a suspension of conviction to overcome his disqualification. However, a stay on conviction is quite rare in corruption cases. Involvement of senior leaders in corruption charges is certain to affect the public confidence in the DMK government.
