The orders to be passed by the Supreme Court on February 5, 2024 will decide whether the Madras High Court would be able to take up for final hearing on the same day a suo motu revision against the discharge of Revenue Minister K.K.S.S.R. Ramachandran and his wife Aadhilakashmi P. Visalatchi from a disproportionate assets case.
While a Division Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra of the Supreme Court has ordered listing of the Minister’s special leave petition (SLP) against the suo motu revision on Monday, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh of the High Court too has listed the suo motu revision for final hearing at 3 p.m. on the same day.
Passing interim orders on the SLP on January 29, 2024, the Supreme Court had directed the Madras High Court Registrar General (R-G) to file a report by February 5, 2024, indicating whether Justice Venkatesh had obtained Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala’s prior approval before exercising the suo motu jurisdiction.
The report was sought after senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Siddharth Luthra and Ravindra Shirvastava, representing the Minister and others, argued before the Supreme Court that it was essential to obtain the Chief Justice’s approval for exercising suo motu jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the R-G, M. Jothiraman, has filed a report before the Supreme Court stating that Justice Venkatesh, holding the MP/MLA portfolio, had passed a “judicial order” on August 21, 2023, stating that he found the discharge order passed by Virudhunagar Principal Sessions Court on July 20, 2023 to be illegal. “Hence, in exercise of the power conferred under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this court is initiating suo motu power of revision against the trial court judgment. There shall be a direction to the Registry to allot suo motu revision number to this case,” the order passed by the single judge read.
The order also directed the Registry to list the suo motu revision for hearing on August 23, 2023. This order was dealt with by the High Court Registry in accordance with two circulars issued during the tenure of Acting Chief Justice Huluvadi G. Ramesh on March 21, 2017 and April 3, 2017, and a third circular issued on January 17, 2021.
While the first circular insisted that cases against MPs/MLAs must be numbered only after the Chief Justice’s approval, the second one modified the first circular to the effect that such cases could be numbered “after bringing it to the notice of the honourable Chief Justice.” The third circular, issued during the tenure of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee, too reiterated that cases against MPs, MLAs and Ministers could be numbered after they were brought to the notice of the Chief Justice.
In view of these circulars, the High Court Registry placed Justice Venkatesh’s August 21, 2023 order before Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala on the same day, soliciting his orders “as to whether the said suo motu criminal revision petition may be taken on file and listed before the honourable court.”
The Chief Justice signed the file with the noting ‘seen’ on August 21, 2023. Subsequently, the suo motu revision petition was numbered and listed for hearing on August 23, 2023 when Justice Venkatesh passed a detailed judicial order, giving reasons for having invoked the suo motu jurisdiction.
The judge also ordered notices to the Minister and his wife on the suo motu revision and directed the Registry to place his August 23, 2023 order before the Chief Justice “for information.” Accordingly, the detailed judicial order was placed before the Chief Justice who signed this file too with the noting ‘seen’ on August 31, 2023.
“In view of the judicial order passed by the honourable single judge of the High Court, Madras, vide order dated August 21, 2023, it is most humbly submitted that prior approval of the honourable the Chief Justice of Madras High Court for exercising suo motu jurisdiction... was not taken. The file noting ‘seen’ was made by the honourable Chief Justice after the honourable single judge exercised his suo motu jurisdiction,” the R-G’s report submitted before the Supreme Court read.
