Tamil Nadu Minister Periyasamy to face trial; Madras HC sets aside order discharging him in corruption case

Madras High Court. (Wikimedia)

The Madras High Court on Monday, 26 February, set aside an order of a special court for the trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act, discharging Tamil Nadu Rural Development Minister I Periyasamy from a corruption case, and directed him to stand trial.

Stating that the legitimacy of the administration of criminal justice will be eroded and public confidence be shaken if MLAs and ministers facing corruption cases are able to short-circuit criminal trials, the judge said the public should not be led to believe that a trial against a politician in this state is nothing but a mockery of dispensing criminal justice.

A Constitutional court is duty-bound, under the Constitution, to ensure that such things do not come to pass, the judge added.

Also Read: Not hate speech, says Supreme Court; stays proceedings against Annamalai

The case and the hearing

• The case pertains to alleged corruption concerning the allotment of a house under the Tamil Nadu Housing Board during the DMK rule of 2006-2011.
• Justice N Anand Venkatesh ordered the Additional Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases related to elected Members of Parliament and Members of the Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu to resume hearing by 26 March.
• The trial is to be conducted daily and completed by 31 July.
• All accused, including Minister Periyasamy, must appear before the Special Court on 28 March and provide a bond of ₹1 lakh each with two sureties under Section 88 CrPC, to the satisfaction of the Special Court.
• If the accused, including Periyasamy, employ dilatory tactics, the trial court can demand their presence and remand them in custody.
• Periyasamy, as an MLA during the offences, required permission from the Speaker, not the Governor, to prosecute him.
• Permission granted by the Speaker is valid; Periyasamy’s petition for discharge after trial commencement is not maintainable.
• Special Court committed an illegality by allowing a second discharge petition during the trial.
• The judge criticised the discharge order dated 17 March, 2023, as manifestly illegal and procedurally improper.

(Disclaimer: The headline, subheads, and format of this report along with the photos may have been reworked by South First. The rest of the content is from a syndicated feed, and has been edited for style.)