Slamming the manner in which a corruption case against Tamil Nadu Minister for Higher Education K Ponmudi was transferred to a different district and resulted in his acquittal, the Supreme Court on Monday lauded Madras High Court judge Justice N Anand Venkatesh for recalling the transfer and acquittal suo motu. While presiding over a three-judge bench, Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud made no bones of his displeasure at the order transferring the case from Villupuram district to Vellore based on the administrative approval granted by three High Court judges – the then Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justices T Raja and V Bhavani Subborayan. “Thank God we have judges like Justice Anand Venkatesh in our system. Look at the conduct. The Chief Justice transfers the trial from one district to another district. Where is that power? There is no administrative power to transfer trials. It is a judicial power," emphasised CJI Chandrachud as the appeal by Ponmudi and his wife challenging Justice Venkatesh’s August 10 order came up for hearing before his bench. The Supreme Court also refused to entertain the plea filed by Ponmudi and his wife against the Madras High Court's August 10 suo motu revision order against their acquittal in the disproportionate assets case. Overruling objections by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal who appeared for the appellants, the CJI said, “The matter is placed before someone else and the trial is hurried ending in an acquittal”. The bench pointed out that the August 10 order only issued notice to the prosecution and accused and told Sibal that he could raise his arguments before the HC. Sibal said he had nothing to do with the administrative order, adding, “I cannot argue for the simple reason that he has set aside the judgment of the trial court”. “He says an administrative order of this nature should not have been passed. What do I have to do with it?" the senior counsel contended but the bench did not relent. On this, the CJI said, “He (Justice Venkatesh) is absolutely right”. The court said in its order, “We are not inclined to entertain the Special Leave Petitions at the present stage. The petitioners would be at liberty to urge all appropriate grievances before the single judge. We clarify that these objections of the accused would be considered on their own merits by the single bench on which we have not expressed any opinion whatsoever." Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for Ponmudi’s wife, also said his client did nothing to do with the administrative order. The SC, however, repeated what the court had said for Justice Venkatesh. “As I said, thank god for our institution that we have judges like the judge in this case who passed the impugned order”. Appearing for an intervenor, Advocate Prashant Bhushan pointed out that Ponmudi is a sitting minister and claimed that the state was in collusion with the accused. He urged the court to appoint an amicus curiae or Special Public Prosecutor, but the SC left it to the HC to decide. The Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption had registered the case against Ponmudi and his wife in 2002 accusing them of gathering disproportionate assets during his tenure as minister in the DMK government from 1996-2001.
