The discharge of Rural Development Minister I. Periyasamy from a case booked for alleged irregular allotment of Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB) plot to former Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi’s personal security officer is “a model for all the wrong reasons. It offers a panoramic view of all known legal techniques available in the armoury to derail trial and to ensure that the wheels of the criminal justice system come to a creaking halt,” the Madras High Court said on Friday.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh made the observation in his 30-page order giving reasons for having takensuo motu review of the discharge order passed by a special court for MP/MLA cases in Chennai on March 7, 2023. The judge also initiated suo motu revision against the discharge of former social welfare Minister B. Valarmathi (AIADMK) in 2012 from a disproportionate assets case booked by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption against her and her family members in 2007.
The judge pointed out that, according to the prosecution, Mr. Periyasamy was Housing Minister in 2008 when the former CM’s PSO C. Ganesan gave a representation seeking allotment of TNHB plot under government’s discretionary quota by falsely claiming to be residing in a private residential house on payment of exorbitant rent though he and his family were actually residing in a TNHB residential quarters on payment of paltry rent of ₹1,180 a month.
The representation was numbered by the Housing Development department on March 6, 2008 and an office note was initiated with a suggestion to allot a high income group plot under Mogappati Eri Scheme by considering him to be an “impeccable honest government servant.” The representation was processed at breakneck speed and Mr. Periyasamy approved it on March 10, 2008. A Government Order was also issued at lightning speed on the very same day.
“How one wishes that the bureaucracy worked the same way for lesser mortals in this State,” the judge remarked and pointed out that Ganesan had also been accused by the DVAC of having entered into a joint development agreement with a real estate developer even before the issuance of the provisional allotment order. He also listed out how the accused dragged the case for years together by filing discharge petitions one after the other before various courts.
The judge said, the police too had played truant by not serving the summons to the witnesses from 2019. The special court had admonished the police in November 2021 but “even this admonition did little to ruffle the thick hide of the state police,” Justice Venkatesh lamented. He said there was a change in guard in the special court in May 2022 after which the Minister filed a fresh discharge petition despite having lost the first round of discharge plea up to the Supreme Court.
“It is self evident that this was part of a well orchestrated plot to somehow short circuit the proceedings before the special court. It is at this juncture that the portals of the special court suddenly turn into a circus for A3 Periasamy to demonstrate his skill in litigative gymnastics,” the judge. He pointed out the second discharge plea was filed on the ground of non competence of the Speaker to grant sanction for prosecution though it had been rejected even by the Supreme Court in the first round.
”However, unlike the earlier round of discharge, this time around luck, by chance or by deliberate design, smiled on A3 in the form of the special court. It is shocking that the special court, which is expected to possess at least a working knowledge of criminal law and procedure, has entertained a petition under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to discharge the accused knowing fully well that the provision does not deal with discharge at all,” the judge rued.
“Having examined the records, this court is of the considered view that the special court has thrown all known norms of judicial propriety to the winds by allowing the discharge petition of A3 on the very same ground that had been negatived earlier by its predecessor and which order was later affirmed by this court as well as the Supreme Court... In its anxiety to discharge the accused, the special court appears to have discharged its judicial conscience as well,” the judge wrote.
VALARMATHI’S CASE
In his order for taking up suo motu revision against the discharge of former Minister Valarmathi in 2012, the judge said: “This case follows a now well established pattern where the DVAC registers a case against a former Minister, completes investigation and files a final report. In the meantime, the opposition returns to power and the former Minister finds herself back in the political saddle. Discharge petitions are quickly filed and allowed.”
The DVAC had booked Ms. Valarmathi, her husband and two sons in 2007 for having amassed wealth disproportionate to their known sources of income when she served as a Minister between 2001 and 2006. After she became Minister again in 2011, “the DVAC suddenly found themselves in a spot. The political winds had now changed direction and the legal fate of the case too had to now change direction given the political circumstances of the day,” the judge remarked.
In 2012 all four accused filed discharge petitions and “unsurprisingly, the prosecution promptly filed its counter affidavit in which it did a complete volte face from the stand taken in the charge sheet,” the judge said and highlighted how the investigating officer suddenly told the court that his investigation had revealed that the Minister had not acquired any property in her name during the check period between 2001 and 2006.
“It is, therefore, evident that after the change in power in the State in 2011, DVAC had, once again acted as the proverbial chameleon dancing to the tunes of the politicians in power. This is not the first time this court has encountered this condemnable practice of the DVAC. There is a consistent pattern discernable in other suo motu revision petitions as well. It is unfortunate that a premier investigation agency of the State has become a plaything in the hands of politicians,” the judge said.
He ordered notices, returnable by October 10, in the two new suo motu revision petitions, to the DVAC as well as all those who had got discharged in both the cases..
