E-Paper
Madras HC judge refuses to recuse from hearing revision of graft cases
Justice Venkatesh said that this has been exercised by the high court as an “institution” and not by one judge to ensure that the streams of criminal justice are “not subverted and remain pure and unsullied”
Chennai: Madras high court judge N Anand Venkatesh on Thursday refused to rescue himself from the revision he initiated on his own accord against the discharge of senior Tamil Nadu politicians in corruption cases and against the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) which probed all the cases.
Higher education minister K Ponmudy, the first of the six politicians whose case the justice took up for revision in August, wanted the hearing to move to another bench on the grounds that justice Venkatesh had made observations already and that it would lead to bias.
In an order, the justice rejected the plea for recusal and the preliminary contentions raised on behalf of the state government and the accused. “At this juncture, this Court observes that the suo motu revisions initiated over the past few weeks have been looked upon in some quarters as a sort of witch-hunt spearheaded by one judge of the High Court,” Justice Venkatesh said.
The DMK accused the judge of having malafide intentions and said they would move the Supreme Court on the matter.
After Ponmudy, the justice issued notices to DMK ministers –Thangam Thennarasu (finance), KKSSR Ramachandran (revenue and disaster), I Periyasamy (rural development) -- former chief minister and expelled AIADMK leader O Panneerselvam, and AIADMK’s former social welfare minister B Valarmathi.
Justice Venkatesh sought to remind those concerned that this has been exercised by the high court as an “institution” and not by one judge to ensure that the streams of criminal justice are “not subverted and remain pure and unsullied”. By taking up these cases suo moto after various special courts for MPs/MLAs had discharged and acquitted the six politicians over the last decade, the high court is acting as per the power vested with the superintendence over the courts subordinate to it, he said.
“The orders of the High Court resonate the voice of not any individual judge but one institution,” the justice said. The justice had said that the DVAC functioned like puppets in a Muppets show and changed like a “chameleon” probing opposition leaders which does not result in prosecution once they come back to power. He observed that Panneerselvam’s discharge in 2012 was the starting point of this pattern.
The court questioned whether a “mere expression of a strong view” at a preliminary stage is enough to engage a plea of bias and concluded that “there is no substance in the plea that this Court is disqualified to hear the matter in view of the observations made by it” in earlier orders. “Consequently, the plea of bias fails, and with it the prayer for recusal also stands rejected,” justice Venkatesh said.
The DVAC, represented by senior counsel Siddharth Luthra, said that the suo moto revisions were initiated before the expiry of the period within which they could appeal the discharges and acquittals. “...since it appears that the State is still contemplating whether it is aggrieved against the order of the Special Court, any discussion is clearly academic and this Court finds it unnecessary to pursue the discussion on this point any further,” the justice said.
