The Madras High Court has taken an extraordinary step by casting doubts on the acquittal of Tamil Nadu Minister Ponmudy and his wife in a high-profile disproportionate assets case. This scrutiny arose when Justice Anand Venkatesh exercised his suo motu revision powers, asserting that not only was the transfer of the case illegal, but the subsequent acquittal also raised suspicions.

Justice Venkatesh's Decree

In a strongly-worded order, Justice Venkatesh strongly criticized the transfer of the case from the District Judge at Villupuram to the District Judge at Vellore, branding it as "ex-facie illegal and non-est in the eye of the law." The judge highlighted that the transfer had been initiated by the Madras High Court's administrative side. He voiced concerns about the procedural aspects of the transfer, particularly its timing at the trial's conclusion. He also questioned the rapidity with which the trial judge in Vellore acquitted the defendants.

Justice Venkatesh pointed out that the trial judge managed to compose a 226-page judgment within just four days of the conclusion of arguments on June 23. Intriguingly, the Principal District Judge of Vellore retired merely two days later, on June 30. This sequence of events led Justice Venkatesh to suspect potential manipulation of the criminal justice system.

Transfer Ruled Unlawful

In an extraordinary move, Justice Venkatesh initiated a suo motu revision of the case's transfer order. He contended that the administrative side of the High Court lacked the authority to transfer a pending criminal case from one district to another. The judge proclaimed the transfer order as "ex-facie illegal and non-est in law," underscoring that no such authority was conferred by the Constitution, the Letters Patent, or any legal provision. He highlighted that the process surrounding the transfer and subsequent judgment was fraught with irregularities and violations of the law.

Raised Questions and Ambiguities

Justice Venkatesh raised a series of pertinent questions about the case. He questioned the rationale behind the High Court's issuance of an Official Memorandum that restrained the Principal District Judge of Villupuram from continuing with the case. He also challenged the Administrative Committee's jurisdiction to transfer a pending criminal case from one district to another through a mere note.

The judge highlighted the distinction between the Chief Justice's role as the Master of the Roster and the absence of authority to transfer a criminal case across districts. He concluded that the entire process, including the transfer and the trial, lacked a legal foundation.

Ensuring Justice and Public Trust

Justice Venkatesh justified his suo motu revision powers by asserting that when a glaring illegality within a criminal court results in a significant miscarriage of justice, the High Court bears the responsibility to rectify the situation. He emphasized the paramount importance of upholding public confidence in the criminal justice system, asserting that the court must safeguard justice from compromise.

Issuance of Directives

In light of his findings, Justice Venkatesh issued several directives:

• The Additional Public Prosecutor was instructed to advocate on behalf of the state's interests.
• The accused individuals were notified of a hearing scheduled for September 7, 2023.
• The Chief Justice was to be apprised of the proceedings.
• The judge further advocated for remedial measures to restore the integrity of the criminal justice system.

This extraordinary case has garnered substantial attention, underscoring the judiciary's pivotal role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring justice prevails, even in the face of alleged manipulation