Retired Tamil Nadu Judge Challenges Adverse Comments in Disproportionate Assets Case
Last Updated on November 7, 2023 by News Desk
A retired Sessions Judge from Tamil Nadu has approached the Supreme Court, expressing her discontent over unfavorable remarks made by a Madras High Court judge regarding her acquittal of State Minister K Ponmudi and his wife in a disproportionate assets case.
The petitioner, who served as the Principal District and Sessions Judge in Vellore, took exception to the comments made by High Court Justice Anand Venkatesh in his revision order. The order questioned the acquittal, citing irregularities in the trial’s transfer and conduct.
Senior Advocate Dr. S Muralidhar represented the petitioner before the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition filed against the adverse comments. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra disposed of the petition, granting the petitioner the liberty to respond to the adverse remarks before the High Court judge currently handling the revision.
The Supreme Court clarified that the observations in the High Court’s order are preliminary.
During the hearing, Dr. S Muralidhar expressed concerns about the impact of these comments on the petitioner’s career, emphasizing that they could cast a shadow on her judicial career without providing an opportunity to present her perspective.
In response, the Court acknowledged the petitioner’s grievance and permitted her to submit a response to the Registrar General of the High Court. This was done to alleviate the burden on the petitioner to engage legal representation and appear before the High Court, considering her former role as a trial judge.
“The Single Judge would be at liberty to take an appropriate view in regard to the conduct of the petitioner after considering the explanation which is tendered by the petitioner,” the Court added.
However, the Court also affirmed the petitioner’s right to engage legal counsel to represent her interests. A different judge is currently presiding over the revision following a roster change involving Justice Anand Venkatesh.
Furthermore, the same bench declined to entertain the petitions of K Ponmudi and his wife against the revision order, citing doubts about the trial’s transfer and praising Justice Venkatesh’s intervention. The petitioners were granted the liberty to voice their objections before the High Court’s single judge.
Written by — Athi Venkatesh A.V.D
