Opinion I am proud of Justice Anand Venkatesh, a whistleblower of a creaking justice system

On August 10, Justice Anand Venkatesh ordered the reopening of the case against K Ponmudy, the minister for higher education. He was acquitted by the Principal District Court in Vellore district, upon a strange case transfer from Villupuram. On August 23, which shall now be National Space Day to commemorate the Chandrayaan-3 mission accomplishment, Justice Venkatesh ordered the reopening of the case against KKSSR Ramachandran, minister for revenue. And he did likewise with another minister Thangam Thennarasu, finance. All three were accused of amassing assets beyond their known sources of income. In all three cases, Justice Venkatesh expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which the trial courts had conducted the cases. He has quoted words, syllables and punctuations to factually, with legal support, draw his findings.

Justice Venkatesh’s orders have sparked a political controversy in Tamil Nadu. The DMK, the ruling party, has accused the judge of being biased against the government. The party has also said that it will challenge the orders in the Supreme Court. “Selectivity” has been attributed to the learned judge.

The cases against Ponmudy, Ramachandran and Thennarasu are now back in the Madras High Court. It remains to be seen whether the court will uphold the acquittals or order a retrial. Justice Venkatesh made the following observations in his orders: (i) The Special Court had “blindly” accepted the closure report submitted by the investigating agency. And the Vellore Court was too hurried to be natural. (ii) The Special Court had “failed to give any reasons” for its decision to acquit the accused. (iii) The Special Court had “resorted to a curious judicial technique” by writing the order in a way that nobody, “including the judge himself”, could understand. (iv) Something was “very rotten” in the Special Court for MP/MLA cases at Srivilliputhur.

The saddest part of it all was the possible “role” played by the administrative side of the Madras High Court, which is appalling to one’s conscience. Less said the better. The cases are likely to be closely watched by the public in Tamil Nadu and pan-India. The outcome could have a significant impact on the political and judicial landscape.

The Madras High Court was established in 1862 by the Charter Act of 1861. It is the second oldest high court in India after the Calcutta High Court and every justice and chief justice has unfailingly basked in its “highest traditions”. The court initially had jurisdiction over the Madras Presidency, which included the present-day states of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Puducherry and Telangana. Its lessened geographical sweep now has not detracted from its moral force.

Justice VR Krishna Iyer put it pithily: “The Madras High Court is a symbol of the rule of law in India. It is a guardian angel of the rights of the people and a bulwark against arbitrary government power. The court’s contribution in the Justice Muthuswamy Iyer tradition (first ever high court justice) to the Justice Vivian Bose metaphor to bakers, butchers and candlestick makers, in institutional integrity is matchless”.

The three orders are eloquent. They are imbued with his anguish, not anger. As a fellow judge, one can confirm that Justice Venkatesh would have agonised long and hard before he decided. It must have been gut-wrenching to expose oneself as part of a tainted system, meant to be blindfolded to all “special interests”. As Ernest Hemingway said, the words may have been written “in blood”.

One had occasion to pore over the “objections” to Justice Venkatesh’s “selective” rage. They suggest the judge was guilty of playing “pick and choose”. Sorry, the three egregious instances picked and chose themselves, and cried for immediate attention. Justice Venkatesh may have failed the oath he took, when he assumed office, if he had ignored “them” after becoming ‘‘aware”. That he did not and chose to bite a difficult bullet, redounds to his lasting credit, as a conscientious judge, in the sui generis genre. He did what he had to, as an impeccable judge of integrity. What, pray, selectivity is he being accused of?

As to social media trolling, now inevitable, as the judge himself said, while disdainfully declining to initiate contempt action, it has enhanced the majesty of the institution. It may have been tempting to go after the scurrilous diatribe. That he did not adds shine to the absent crown. Justice Venkatesh quoted William Shakespeare, “Something is rotten in the State of Denmark”. On reading the criticism, one was reminded of Shakespeare’s equally famous quote, “The lady doth protest too much”.

No one has challenged the “facts” and the “jurisdiction”. The criticism is polarised in the extreme and driven by deliberate intent and suspect motives. The “substance” of the three orders speaks for itself, with erudition, authority and legal acumen, in marshaling the facts and law. The chronology of events, as they transpired in all three instances, is revealing of possible hatched plans executed with intent. I am jealous of the orders, to be truthful.

What did the justice expose? Just what legends like Chief Justice JS Verma — “Judicial corruption is a threat to the very foundation of our democracy. It undermines the rule of law and erodes public trust in the judiciary” — and Chief Justice MN Venkatachaliah — “Judicial corruption is a cancer that must be rooted out. It is a threat to the very survival of the judiciary” — had pointed to.

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.

The Supreme Court is the repository of the integrity of the judicial institution. It is the final arbiter of the Constitution and all that is of good order in the rule of law. One trusts the top court in the land would see it as a glorious opportunity to add its might to the majesty of the institution of judiciary, that our noble forefathers had fondly put there, for us all, that is, we the people.

The writer is a retired judge of Madras High Court