Madras HC Sets Aside Discharge of TN Minister Periyasamy in Corruption Case

Chennai: Madras High Court overturned the discharge of Tamil Nadu Rural Development Minister I Periyasamy in a irregular plot allotment case. 

Serious accusations were levelled against the Periyasamy that he has conspired with other persons to illegally acquire High Income Group Plot in the Mogappair Eri Scheme of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, while in the capacity of a Minister for Housing in the DMK cabinet between 2008 and 2009. 

Allowing the suo moto revision of discharge of the Minister on Monday, Justice Anand Venkatesh overturned the trial court's order. 

The court has ordered the trial to be transferred from the Special Court for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act to the Special Court for trial of cases against MPs and MLAs.

The trail will now take place at the Special Court for trial of cases against MPs  and MLAs instead of  Special Court for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act. 

The court has directed the Minister and other accused to be present in the court on March 28, 2024 and furnish a bond of Rs. 1 Lakh.  besides directing the transfer to be completed with a period of mone month (by March 26, 2024). 

Additionally, the trial court has been instructed by the court to hold daily trials and to provide reports to the Registrar General of the High Court on a regular basis. Additionally, the court has granted the trial court the authority to place the accused under judicial custody should it be discovered that they are using delaying strategies.

Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar representing Periyaswami has argued that the trial against the Minister was initiated upon the sanction from Speaker from the House. He said in the court that this trial was non-est in law as the correct authority for granting the sanction is the Governor. 

Kumar further contended that the trial court had stated in rejecting the first discharge petition that the arguments could not be accepted without first hearing from the Speaker. Thus, Kumar contended that in view of the trial court's earlier ruling, the second discharge petition—which was submitted following the start of the trial and following the witness's examination—would still be valid.

Even after the trial court had discharged the Minister due to faulty sanction, the court had questioned the DVAC's inaction in getting the sanction to prosecute. The court continued by saying that there was a methodical issue at hand that needed to be resolved. The court further stated that it ought to convey to the general public that it was capable of taking legal action against even the most powerful individuals.