The case concerns allegations that Tamil Nadu Health Minister Ma Subramanian and his wife illegally acquired land allotted under a government scheme while he was Chennai Mayor.
Published May 17, 2025 | 9:00 AM ⚊ Updated May 24, 2025 | 7:51 PM
Subramanian served as Mayor of Chennai from 2006 to 2011.
Synopsis: The Supreme Court has raised a crucial question in the corruption case involving Tamil Nadu Health Minister Ma Subramanian, which could set a precedent for who may authorise prosecution sanction in such cases. The case revolves around allegations that Subramanian and his wife illegally acquired land intended for industrial use while he was the Mayor of Chennai.
The Supreme Court has raised a crucial constitutional question in a corruption case involving Tamil Nadu Minister for Health and Family Welfare Ma Subramanian: when allegations relate to a former public office, who must authorise prosecution – the authority tied to the previous post or the current one?
The case concerns allegations that Subramanian and his wife illegally acquired land allotted under a government scheme while he was Chennai Mayor.
Subramanian served as Mayor of Chennai from 2006 to 2011.
The land, originally allotted under the SIDCO scheme in 1995 to a man named Karunan, was allegedly purchased by Subramanian and his wife in violation of SIDCO rules that prohibit sale and require such land to be returned to the government if not used by the original allottee.
Soon after, allegations of large-scale corruption emerged.
In 2019, a man named Parthiban filed a complaint alleging corruption in the land transaction.
The police subsequently registered a First Information Report against Subramanian and his wife.
At the time, Subramanian was serving as a MLA, thus, sanction for his prosecution was granted by then-Speaker P Dhanapal.
The case was first taken up by a lower court.
Subramanian then approached the Madras High Court, which imposed an interim stay on the investigation.
However, on 28 March 2025, the High Court lifted the stay, allowing the investigation to proceed. Following this, the trial court issued summons to Subramanian.
In response, he filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s decision.
During the hearing, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Subramanian, argued that the alleged offence occurred during his tenure as Mayor of Chennai.
Therefore, he contended, sanction should have come from the government, which was the competent authority over that office at the time – not the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly.
Opposing this view, advocates Rakesh Sharma and Sirajudeen, representing complainant Parthiban, argued that the land was purchased even before Subramanian became Mayor, and therefore his reliance on mayoral tenure was legally baseless and irrelevant to the question of sanction.
At this point, the bench – comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Vinod Chandran – posed a key question to Rohatgi:
“People change positions all the time. Suppose someone was an ISRO scientist and committed an offence during that time, and later moved to a different post. Would we then need ISRO’s sanction for prosecution?”
The bench also asked whether there were any prior judicial rulings addressing similar situations and invited Subramanian’s legal team to produce relevant precedents.
The Supreme Court has adjourned the matter to 21 May, granting time for Subramanian’s legal team to submit relevant case law.
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
