Key Points

The Supreme Court has temporarily halted a Madras High Court order that revived a disproportionate assets case against Tamil Nadu Minister I. Periyasamy and his family. Periyasamy argues the 2012 case was politically motivated during AIADMK's rule. The minister claims his family's income was properly documented and no unaccounted assets were found. The case is also connected to an alleged illegal housing plot allotment from his time as Housing Minister.

Key Points: SC Stays Madras HC Order Against TN Minister Periyasamy in DA Case

  • SC stays Madras HC order reviving DA case against Periyasamy
  • Minister claims case is politically motivated by AIADMK
  • Family argues income tax returns were already accepted
  • Case linked to alleged illegal housing plot allotment
2 min read

SC stays Madras HC order against TN minister Periyasamy in Disproportionate Assets case

Supreme Court halts Madras HC ruling, orders TN Minister Periyasamy & family to face trial in 2012 disproportionate assets case.

"No trial can proceed against a sitting minister without the Governor’s sanction. – I. Periyasamy"

New Delhi, Aug 18

The Supreme Court on Monday stayed a Madras High Court order that had overturned the discharge of Tamil Nadu Rural Development Minister I. Periyasamy, his wife P. Suseela, and their sons, P. Prabhu and P. Senthilkumar, from a disproportionate assets case filed in 2012. The apex court directed the Minister and his family to face trial in the case.

A Bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta issued notice to the Tamil Nadu government on the petition filed by Periyasamy and his family, represented by senior advocate V. Giri and advocate Ram Sankar.

The petition challenged the High Court’s April 28 ruling, which revived the case despite a trial court having discharged the accused in 2017.

Periyasamy argued that the case was politically-motivated and “foisted” on him when the AIADMK was in power in 2012.

He pointed out that a similar disproportionate assets case concerning the period 1996–2001 had been dismissed by the courts, including the Supreme Court.

The petition further maintained that his wife and sons had independent incomes and that the prosecution’s case was built solely on income tax returns already accepted by the authorities.

It alleged that investigators had artificially inflated figures by duplicating capital account entries along with bank balances, thus creating a false impression of illegal wealth.

No unaccounted property or cash was recovered from the family, it argued.

The Supreme Court also linked the matter to another petition filed by Periyasamy. In that case, the court had in April 2024 stayed proceedings over the alleged allotment of a Tamil Nadu Housing Board plot in Mogappair to the personal security officer of then Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi in 2008–09, when Periyasamy was the Housing Minister.

The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption had registered the case in 2012 after DMK lost power to AIADMK. Though a special court discharged him in 2023 citing lack of sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court later revived the case while taking suo motu cognisance of corruption cases involving lawmakers.

Periyasamy has consistently argued that no trial can proceed against a sitting minister without the Governor’s sanction.

- IANS

Share this article:

Reader Comments

S
Shreya B
This case has been going on for 12 years! Justice delayed is justice denied. Our legal system needs serious reforms to handle corruption cases faster. How can someone remain minister with such serious allegations pending for so long?
K
Karthik V
As a Tamilian, I'm disappointed but not surprised. Both DMK and AIADMK have ministers with corruption cases. Party changes but corruption remains same. When will we get clean leaders? 😔
P
Priya S
The Governor's sanction argument is just an escape route. If there's evidence, trial should proceed regardless of position. We need to stop giving special treatment to politicians. Common citizens face immediate action for smaller offenses!
A
Aman W
Let's not jump to conclusions. The minister claims the case is fabricated. If IT returns were accepted and no unaccounted wealth found, maybe there's truth to his defense. Courts should examine all evidence properly.
N
Nisha Z
Why is this case only moving forward when opposition is in power? Shows how our systems are misused for political gains. Both sides do it - when in power they protect their own, when in opposition they target rivals. Very sad state of affairs.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50