Justice Anand Venkatesh, the Madras HC judge who ‘opened can of worms’ by revisiting cases against DMK leaders

Noting that the Vellore district judge had delivered on June 30 a 226-page judgement acquitting Ponmudy after hearing the case for just four days before his retirement, Justice Venkatesh said that it revealed “a shocking and calculated attempt to manipulate and subvert the criminal justice system”. The case, which was being heard by Villupuram Principal District Court, was transferred to Vellore on the intervention of Justice Venkatesh’s colleagues in the High Court through an administrative order.

“Within four days thereafter, the Vellore Principal District Judge marshalled the evidence of 172 prosecution witnesses and 381 documents and managed (or rather stage-managed) to deliver a 226-page testament/judgement acquitting all the accused on June 28, 2023. This unique feat of industry on the part of the Principal District Judge, Vellore, can find few parallels, and it may well be said is a feat that even judicial mortals in constitutional courts can only dream of,” Justice Venkatesh wrote without mincing words.

While it is unclear how this particular case caught the attention of the judge, as per the roster, Justice Venkatesh deals with criminal appeals, including appeals relating to crime against women and children and criminal revisions, of cases up to the year 2019.

On August 22, Justice Venkatesh took up two more similar cases related to the discharge of Revenue Minister KKSSR Ramachandran and Finance Minister Thangam Thennarasu. This prompted DMK organisation secretary R S Bharathi to accuse him of following a “pick and choose” policy in taking up suo motu revisions.

On August 30, Justice Venkatesh took up the withdrawal of a disproportionate assets case against former CM O Panneerselvam in 2012, terming it a “cruel joke”.

On September 8, the judge took up for examination the discharge of Tamil Nadu Minister for Rural Development I Periyasamy and AIADMK leader B Valarmathi in similar graft cases. Just as with the other cases, these acquittals were investigated by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), an agency under the state government’s purview.

Justice Venkatesh’s interventions have led to some discomfiture, with some members of the Bar saying that judicial discipline requires that such decisions should either lie solely with the Chief Justice or arise from complaints before the Court.

Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption on September 8 in the cases involving Periyasamy and B Valarmathi, sought Justice Venkatesh’s recusal since he did not have any suo motu revisional jurisdiction.

Justice K Chandru, a former judge of the Madras High Court, pointed out that Justice Venkatesh is not exceeding his powers, even if it is unusual for a judge to take up such cases on his own. “One cannot fault when the High Court takes a suo motu revision under Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. But such power was hitherto exercised only sparingly, and never gets noticed outside because the criminals will be ordinary persons. It is only when sitting ministers are involved that the news becomes widespread.,” Justice Chandru told The Indian Express.

The former HC judge added that the use of language in his preliminary revisional order may have been harsh, and he could have used different terminology. Or, since he has successively used revisional powers against DMK ministers and there is an accusation of bias, he can send the papers to the Chief Justice of Madras HC, who may constitute a different bench to hear those cases. “But under no circumstances, the criminal justice system can be allowed to be perverted under anyone’s behest. After all, in the revision petition, the aggrieved parties will also be heard before any adverse orders are passed,” Justice Chandru said.

In a piece for The Indian Express recently, retired Madras High Court judge, Justice V Parthiban, wrote: “Justice Venkatesh literally played a whistleblower from inside. Exposing himself, in the bargain, as being part of the warts-and-all, now creaking criminal justice system. Can there be any dissent to it? It requires rare courage, boldness and imagination to bare the system one sat over. I am proud to have been a colleague of such a brother in arms.”

Appointed in 2018, Justice Venkatesh had a thriving practice both on the criminal and commercial side. With a generous smear of Vibhuti on his forehead, the judge is known to be fair and give patient hearings. Lawyers who argue before him say that it is often difficult to “convince him once he has made up his mind”.

In 2019, Justice Venkatesh initiated contempt against his acquaintance film producer and educational institution owner Ishari K Ganesh when another common acquaintance used Ganesh’s name to allegedly seek favours from the judge.

In October 2021, when a traffic snarl caused by the 93rd birth anniversary celebrations of actor Sivaji Ganesan made Justice Venkatesh late to court, he hauled up the state home secretary for an explanation.

In the first glimpse of his characteristic candour, in June 2021, when deciding a case involving a same-sex couple, Justice Venkatesh wrote that he needed to break his “own preconceived notions” and that he was not “fully woke”. He appointed a counsellor to speak to the parents of the women on homosexuality.