The legal saga surrounding Tamil Nadu Minister I Periyasamy has taken a significant turn as the Supreme Court has stayed the trial against him in connection with allegations of illegal land allotment. The case, which has spanned over a decade, involves complex legal arguments and political ramifications.

Periyasamy, a prominent leader of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party and currently serving as the Rural Development Minister in Tamil Nadu, was booked in 2012 on accusations of irregular land allotment during his tenure as Housing Minister in March 2008 under the DMK regime. The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) alleged that he was involved in the improper allotment of high-income group land in Chennai to Ganesan, a Personal Security Officer of late DMK supremo M Karunanidhi.

Also Read: Tamil Nadu Minister's corruption case set for hearing on April 8.

The legal battle gained momentum when a special court discharged Periyasamy from the case in 2023. However, this decision was overturned by the Madras High Court earlier this year following a suo motu revision case initiated against him. Justice Anand Venkatesh of the High Court termed the special court's decision as a "gross illegality" and directed Periyasamy to face trial in the case.

In response, Periyasamy filed an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's decision. The apex court, comprising a bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra, has now stayed the trial until it decides on Periyasamy's appeal.

The legal proceedings have also seen procedural disputes, with Periyasamy's application for deferment of the trial being initially refused by the High Court on March 28. However, with the Supreme Court's intervention, the trial against the Minister remains deferred pending the apex court's final decision on the matter.

The case has garnered attention not only due to its legal intricacies but also because of its political implications in Tamil Nadu. Periyasamy's position within the DMK and the broader political landscape adds a layer of complexity to the legal proceedings, with implications for both the ruling party and the opposition.

Case: I Periyasamy vs. State Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption.