E-Paper
No apex court relief for former Tamil Nadu CM
On August 31, high court justice Anand Venkatesh had revived criminal proceedings against OPS and his family after they were discharged by chief judicial magistrate, Sivagangai
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to stay suo motu revision proceedings initiated by the Madras high court against former Tamil Nadu chief minister and All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) leader O Panneerselvam, popularly known as OPS, and his family over their discharge in a disproportionate assets case.
“We are not inclined to stay the proceedings in the case,” a bench of justices Hrishikesh Roy and PK Mishra said, as it dismissed OPS’s petition against the decision of the high court to revive the proceedings on its own.
On August 31, high court justice Anand Venkatesh had revived criminal proceedings against OPS and his family after they were discharged by chief judicial magistrate (CJM), Sivagangai, on December 3, 2012 in the disproportionate assets case.
According to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), Paneerselvam amassed assets in his name and those of his relatives that was 374 times disproportionate to his known sources of income during his tenure as chief minister for four months and subsequently as revenue minister from 2001 to 2006.
Appearing for OPS, senior advocate Jaideep Gupta said that on February 23, the top court had stayed suo motu proceedings in a separate disproportionate assets case involving AIADMK leader and former state minister B Valarmathi. She was acquitted by a trial court in 2012 and the same high court judge had revived the trial through an order passed in September 2023, he said.
“This is the same situation where the matter stood revived after a gap of over 11 years,” Gupta said, seeking a stay order on the revision proceedings.
The bench said: “There is a clear distinction. The jurisdiction of the magistrate that decided the case was not the issue there. We feel this is not the same case. If you want us to make observations, that will only prejudice you.”
It added: “Don’t invite any comments from us on how the magistrate conducted himself/herself. We have read the entire petition and have marked several lines in red. It indicates red light.”
While dismissing OPS’s petition, the top court said: “Before parting with the matter, we observe that any observations made in the August 31, 2023 judgment are to be considered only for the stage of issuing notice in the suo motu matter and those observations should have no bearing in deciding the criminal revision. All contentions to be argued by the petitioner are kept open.”
In its August 31, judgment, the high court said “the records, prima facie, reveal a shocking tale of how the criminal justice system was once again subverted by the collective effort of all concerned to ensure that the accused were released from the clutches of the law.”
It noted that the CJM, who ordered discharge of the petitioner, passed the order even as the matter stood transferred to the special court in Madurai.
The high court also noted several “disturbing features” in the progress of the trial in the Panneerselvam case. “The facts catalogued are shocking and disturbing. They disclose a grave illegality at every stage which shows a well-orchestrated plan. This is a case where a political personage has maneuvered the department of vigilance and anti-corruption (DVAC), the state government and the court to ensure that the trial against him was derailed.”
