NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Monday solidly backed Madras high court judge Justice N Anand Venkatesh’s suo motu decision to examine the validity of a trial judge’s unusual alacrity in acquitting Tamil Nadu education minister K Ponmudy and his wife in a 20-year-old corruption case within a year of the HC chief justice transferring it to her from another trial judge.
“Thank god, we have judges like Justice Anand Venkatesh in the HCs. What is happening? The high court chief justice transfers the case from one district judge to another, under what power? Does he have such power on the administrative side? This can only be done on the judicial side. And then a hurried hearing takes place and the accused are acquitted. Justice Venkatesh has taken the right course of action. Let him decide the matter,” said a bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.
Justice Venkatesh had smelt a rat in the unusual speed with which the trial judge in Vellore, to whom the 20-year-old case was transferred on an irregular administrative decision of the HC CJ in July 12 last year, proceeded with the trial and delivered a 226-page judgment two days before her retirement on June 30 this year. Invoking powers under Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code, he called for trial court records and issued notices to the public prosecutor, Ponmudy and his wife.
The challenge to the order was by retired trial judge N Vasathaleela, who through senior advocate S Muralidhar, who recently retired as chief justice of Orissa HC, said she had an unblemished career record and had been condemned unheard by the HC judge.
When the CJI-led bench permitted Vasanthleela to give a representational explanation to the HC judge through the registrar general on the manner in which she proceeded with the trial, the counsel for the accused minister and his wife, advocate Kapil Sibal, questioned the HC judge’s decision. He was joined by DMK government’s counsel Mukul Rohatgi.
But the CJI-led bench firmly backed Justice Venkatesh’s decision and said the judge had only issued notices to the public prosecutor and the accused persons. All could give whatever explanation in response to the notice before the HC judge, the bench said and refused to entertain the petitions.

The case against Ponmudy and his wife P Visalakshi was registered in 2002, immediately after the AIADMK returned to power, alleging the two had got Rs 1.4 crore disproportionate to their known sources of income. The prosecution had charged Ponmudy with amassing illegal assets during his tenure as minister in the DMK cabinet between 1996 and 2001.
In his order, Justice Venkatesh had criticised the manner in which the case was transferred from principal district judge in Villupuram to the PDJ in Vellore last year by the HC CJ on the basis of a note submitted by the administrative judge of HC. He had said that the HC CJ had no such power to transfer trial from one district judge to another.
Justice Venkatesh said, “By June 6, 2023, a case which had thus far been lingering on for years started to move with great alacrity. Perhaps, the accused drew inspiration from Paulo Coelho, who said that ‘when you want something, the universe conspires in helping you to achieve it’. By the first week of June 2023, the celestial stars of the accused appeared to be lining up perfectly, with the blessings of judicial personages, including the PDJ, Vellore, who was set to demit office on June 30, 2023.
“Defence witness-1 was quickly examined on the side of the defence on June 6, 2023. On June 23, written submissions were made on the side of the accused, and on June 28, that is within four days, the PDJ, Vellore, marshalled the evidence of 172 prosecution witnesses and 381 documents and managed (or rather stage-managed) to deliver a 226-page testament/judgment acquitting all the accused. This unique feat of industry on the part of the principal district judge, Vellore, can find few parallels, and it may well be said is a feat that even judicial mortals in constitutional courts can only dream of. Two days thereafter, on June 30, the PDJ, Vellore retired and cheerfully rode off into the sunset.”
The HC chief justice transfers the case from one district judge to another, under what power? Does he have such power on the administrative side? This can only be done on the judicial side. And then a hurried hearing takes place and the accused are acquitted
Within four days, the PDJ marshalled the evidence of 172 witnesses and 381 documents and managed to deliver a 226-page judgment acquitting all the accused. This unique feat of industry… can find few parallels. Two days thereafter, the PDJ… rode off into the sunset.