Taking cognisance of the PIL filed by Chennai-based advocate Karrupiah Gandhi, in which he contends that the current state prosecution fails to inspire confidence in ensuring free and fair trials, the apex court has sought a response from the Tamil Nadu Government. This move follows concerns that the state’s political landscape may be influencing the investigations and outcomes of cases against ministers from different political parties.
Challenges in Tamil Nadu’s Legal Landscape
The PIL argues that cases against various ministers in the Tamil Nadu State Government have ended in either closure reports or acquittals, with the state government rarely filing appeals in such cases. This pattern has raised serious suspicions and diminished public faith in the judicial process. It is suggested that the influence of state politics in the investigation of ministers from rival parties can lead to alleged culprits escaping prosecution.
For over five decades, Tamil Nadu has witnessed a cyclical change of power between two major political parties, the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK). However, the transition of power often comes with allegations and cases initiated against the predecessors, resulting in an urgent need to address concerns about potentially unfair prosecutions.
Demand for CBI Intervention
The petitioner, Karupaiah Gandhi, has called for a significant change in the way cases against ministers are handled. He contends that the cases being probed by the Tamil Nadu Police should be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to ensure an impartial and unbiased investigation.
According to the petitioner, more than half of the Tamil Nadu State Cabinet members are currently facing criminal charges. Given the gravity of the situation, the PIL emphasizes the need for these cases to be expedited and heard promptly. It also calls for regular status reports on the actions taken in this regard.
Supreme Court Takes Action
The PIL was brought before a bench of Justices BR Gavai, Aravind Kumar, and Prashant Kumar Mishra in the Supreme Court. The bench issued notices to the Tamil Nadu government and the Director General of Police (DGP) to respond to the allegations and concerns raised in the petition.
In this high-profile case, the petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu along with advocates Ravi Prakash, Samir Malik, and Astu Khandelwal. Their legal expertise will play a crucial role in advancing the arguments presented in the PIL.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court has also taken independent action in response to the discharge or acquittal of six sitting and former Tamil Nadu ministers in cases involving disproportionate assets and other charges. Notable figures among these include the Higher Education Minister K Ponmudi, Finance Minister Thangam Thennarasu, Revenue and Disaster Management Minister KKSSR Ramachandran, Rural Development Minister I Periyasamy, former Chief Minister O Panneerselvam, and former Social Welfare Minister B Valarmathi. It’s worth noting that Senthil Balaji, a minister without a portfolio, was recently remanded to judicial custody in a money laundering case probed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). His bail application was also rejected by the Madras High Court.
Harsh Critique of DVAC
Justice Anand Venkatesh, in his suo motu revision, has strongly criticised the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), likening its actions to a “Muppets show” and accusing it of functioning like a “chameleon” that probes opposition leaders without leading to prosecution once they return to power. He pointed to the discharge of O Panneerselvam in 2012 as the starting point of this concerning pattern.
In an interesting historical context, it’s worth noting that in 2003, the DMK General Secretary K Anbazhagan approached the Supreme Court to transfer a trial to Karnataka, arguing that a fair trial was not possible in Tamil Nadu in a Disproportionate Assets case involving Jayalalithaa as Chief Minister. The Supreme Court, on November 18, 2003, transferred the case to Bengaluru. In 2014, a special court convicted Jayalalithaa and three others, including her aide Sasikala, and imposed a four-year prison term on Jayalalithaa along with a hefty fine of Rs 100 crore. The case reached the Supreme Court, which upheld the special court’s verdict.
The PIL filed by advocate Karrupiah Gandhi highlights growing concerns about the fairness and impartiality of trials against ministers in Tamil Nadu. The Supreme Court’s decision to issue notices to the Tamil Nadu government and the DGP reflects the gravity of the situation and the need for transparency and accountability in the state’s legal landscape. As the case unfolds, it has the potential to significantly impact the way trials against ministers are conducted in the state, addressing allegations of political influence and promoting a more equitable judicial process. This development has sparked significant public interest and legal scrutiny, making it an issue to watch closely in the coming days.
Comments