The Supreme Court on Monday, April 8, 2024 stayed the trial of Tamil Nadu Rural Development Minister I. Periyasamy in a corruption case regarding the alleged allotment of a High Income Group plot in the Mogappair Eri scheme of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.
A Bench headed by Justice Hrishikesh Roy stepped in after the Special Judge trying the case had refused to defer proceedings.
The trial judge reasoned that the Madras High Court had given him a deadline of July 31, 2024 to complete the trial. Any postponement would lead to delay.
The Minister, represented by advocate Ram Sankar, had wanted to put the trial on temporary hold to give the apex court requisite time to decide his petition challenging a suo motu order of a Single Judge Bench of the Madras High Court to reopen the case against him.
“We are of the view that the trial ordered by the High Court should not proceed till the Supreme Court is hearing it. The proceedings before the trial court is stayed,” the Supreme Court directed.
The plot allotment was made to C. Ganesan, who was the personal security officer to the then Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi, in 2008-2009. Mr. Periyasamy was at the time the Minister for Housing in the then DMK government. The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC) had lodged the case against Mr. Periyasamy in February 2012 when DMK lost the elections to AIADMK. The DMK again formed the government in Tamil Nadu in 2021. Mr. Periyasamy became a Minister. Two years later, in March 2023, a Special Court trying corruption cases against lawmakers discharged him in the case for want of proper sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
However, a Single Judge Bench of the Madras High Court of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh took suo motu cognisance of six cases of corruption. Mr. Periyasamy’s case was the first one. The High Court set aside the discharge order of the trial court and put the case back on trial.
Mr. Periyasamy has challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court to reopen the case when there was no sanction for prosecution given by the Governor under Section 197.
“The Special Judge rightly discharged the petitioner (Periyasamy). The High Court erred in invoking suo motu powers of revision and erred in setting aside the well-reasoned judgment of the Special Court… It is the sanctity of a valid sanction which confers jurisdiction on the court and without the same, the prosecution is non est and the court lacks jurisdiction,” the Minister argued in the apex court.
The application argued that trial cannot commence against the Minister without prior sanction. Sanction for a valid prosecution of a sitting Cabinet Minister can only be given by the Governor, it noted.
