The DVAC filed the case in 2002, alleging that Duraimurugan had amassed assets worth ₹3.92 crore disproportionate to his known income during his tenure as the Minister for Public Works from 1996 to 2001.
Published Apr 24, 2025 | 4:04 PM ⚊ Updated Apr 26, 2025 | 11:25 AM
Minister Doraimurugan.
Synopsis: Setting aside a 2007 discharge order in favour of Minister Duraimurugan and his family members — including his son and MP Kathir Anand — the High Court ordered the special court in complete the trial in six months.
Reversing a discharge order passed by a special court in Vellore in 2007, the Madras High Court on Wednesday, 23 April, said Water Resources Minister Duraimurugan and his family members should stand trial in a disproportionate assets case registered in 2002.
While allowing a batch of five revision petitions that the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) had filed, the high court directed the special court to complete the trial in six months.
The DVAC filed the case in 2002, alleging that Duraimurugan had amassed assets worth ₹3.92 crore disproportionate to his known income during his tenure as the Minister for Public Works from 1996 to 2001.
The case included charges against Duraimurugan, his wife D Shanthakumari, son DM Kathir Anand, daughter-in-law K Sangeetha, and brother Durai Singaram. In 2007, the Vellore court discharged all the accused. Kathir Anand currently represents Vellore in the Lok Sabha.
In 2013, during the AIADMK government’s tenure, a revision petition was filed challenging the discharge order. Justice P Velmurugan of the High Court heard the revision petition.
Additional Advocate General Ravindran appeared on behalf of the DVAC and presented the FIR and the chargesheets to support the case. Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra represented Duraimurugan, while Senior Advocate P Wilson appeared for his family members.
The defense argued that the DVAC had wrongly attributed the individual incomes and professional earnings of the other accused as part of Duraimurugan’s assets.
They also pointed out that some of the properties listed in the case were acquired before the period under scrutiny. They contended that there was no evidence to label the family members as Duraimurugan’s benamis (proxies).
Moreover, the defense stated that each accused had independently and lawfully filed income-tax returns, which were accepted by the DVAC. They also argued that the investigation was conducted by an officer without proper jurisdiction, as such cases should be investigated by a superintendent-level officer.
Furthermore, they claimed the case was pursued without the legally required sanction for prosecution. Based on these grounds, the trial court had previously discharged the accused, and the defense sought dismissal of the revision petition, stating it was not fit for review.
After hearing all arguments, the judge had previously reserved the verdict without specifying a date.
On Wednesday, the court delivered its judgment, accepting the DVAC’s revision petition, quashing the 2007 order that discharged the accused, and directing the Vellore Special Court to frame charges and begin trial proceedings.
Justice Velmurugan emphasized that since the alleged accumulation of assets occurred during the 1996–2001 period, the case must be concluded within six months.
