The Madras High Court is set to examine a critical legal question: can a judge exercising administrative authority transfer a criminal trial from one district to another?
This significant issue has come into focus during the hearing of a suo motu revision petition related to the disproportionate assets case against Tamil Nadu Minister K. Ponmudy. The trial in this case was originally moved from Villupuram to Vellore through an administrative order of the Madras High Court.
Read Also:- Madras High Court Extends Interim Bail Protection For Kunal Kamra In FIR Over Satirical Video Till April 17
Justice Anand Venkatesh, who is presiding over the matter, had earlier remarked that the transfer appeared to be “ex-facie illegal and non-est in the eyes of law.” He further stated:
“The Chief Justice, as the master of the roster, does not have administrative powers to transfer a criminal case pending in one district court to another district court.”
On April 8, 2025, while continuing the hearing, Justice Venkatesh said that the central issue before the court is whether a judge holding an administrative portfolio over a particular district has the authority to relocate a trial to another district. He also raised an important point about whether receiving concurrence from the Chief Justice grants such an administrative decision any elevated legal status.
The court is also expected to consider if such a significant administrative decision should have been reviewed and approved by the Full Court. Additionally, the court will deliberate on whether such transfers could impact the rights of the accused, especially in cases where the trial in another district leads to an acquittal.
Justice Venkatesh questioned:
“If the administrative side could do it, then there's nothing to be done. But if not, to what extent will it prejudice the right of the accused whose trial was conducted in a different district resulting in acquittal?”
Read Also:- State Defends Online Gaming Night Ban Before Madras High Court, Cites Protection of Teenagers
The judge clarified that the court's intent is not to assign blame to any individual but to ensure judicial consistency and institutional integrity. He emphasized:
“Ultimately, Anand Venkatesh is part of the High Court only. Fingers should not be pointed at A, B, or C. The court has to speak in one voice, it’s one institution. As judges of this stature, holding this position, there's no individuality. The court is only testing itself. The court is not looking into whether what A, B, or C did is wrong.”
Senior Advocate NR Elango, representing Ponmudy, and Advocate General PS Raman have been asked to assist the court in resolving these complex legal issues.
Justice Venkatesh also pointed out that the outcome of the case might have consequences for the credibility of the judiciary if such transfers are proven to be unauthorized. He remarked:
“Ultimately, the person who faced the trial will come and say that I didn't have anything to do with this and it's because of your fault. That's why I need assistance. I've to cross this and only then I can look into the manner in which the trial was conducted. Sitting in judicial position, it’s not possible for me to say that I'm setting aside the order because you’ve passed it in 4 days. That’s not a ground. We have to look whether everything has gone well… All of us owe it to the institution and we must be very careful when we test the waters here.”
Read Also:- Tamil Nadu Government Defends Online Gaming Restrictions Before Madras High Court
This issue arises in the context of a broader examination by the High Court into the legality and procedural soundness of such administrative transfers. Besides Ponmudy’s case, the High Court has also initiated a suo motu revision in other related matters.
Case Title: Suo Motu RC v. Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and Others
Case Number: Crl RC 1419 of 2023
