“Supreme Court’s Suo Motu Jurisdiction Clarification”

The Supreme Court, in response to a Single Judge of the Madras High Court taking suo motu revision against the discharge of Tamil Nadu Revenue Minister KKSSR Ramachandran in a corruption case, expressed the view that the judge should have ideally consulted the Chief Justice before issuing the order. After considering submissions from Ramachandran’s representatives and reviewing the report submitted by the Registrar General of the Madras High Court, the Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra left the decision regarding who should handle the suo motu proceedings to the Chief Justice of the High Court. They stated that the matter should either be handled by the Chief Justice personally or assigned to another judge as deemed appropriate by him. The Supreme Court emphasized that all proceedings should ideally originate from the Chief Justice’s office, noting that in this case, the order was passed before obtaining the Chief Justice’s approval. However, it clarified that the order should not be interpreted as making comments on the concerned judge’s handling of the case.

Additionally, similar matters involving Ramachandran’s wife and Thangam Thennarasu, a Tamil Nadu Minister, were disposed of in light of this decision.

The background of the case involves Ramachandran challenging the suo motu cognizance taken by Justice Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court against his discharge in a corruption case. The allegation against Ramachandran was that he, along with his wife and friend, amassed wealth disproportionate to his income while serving as a Minister between 2006 and 2011. Ramachandran argued that Justice Venkatesh did not obtain prior approval from the Chief Justice for exercising suo motu jurisdiction in the revisional proceeding.

During the hearing, counsels representing the Madras High Court argued that a specific rule comes into play only when a revision application against discharge is admitted by a Single Judge of the High Court. Justice Roy commented on this argument, stating that while Rule 14 may not apply in the manner suggested by the petitioner’s counsels, it does involve a role for the Chief Justice.

After considering the arguments and a report from the Madras High Court, the Supreme Court passed its order.

It’s notable that a previous Chief Justice of India-led Bench declined to interfere with Justice Venkatesh’s suo motu order reopening the acquittal of Tamil Nadu Minister K Ponmudy and his wife in a disproportionate assets case, commending the judge for raising questions about the case’s transfer and acquittal through suo motu revision powers.