The Supreme Court in the case N Vasanthaleela vs. Madras High Court Through Its Registrar General observed wherein the retired Sessions Judge from Tamil Nadu approached the Supreme Court aggrieved by the adverse comments made by a single judge of the Madras High Court against her in relation to the judgment passed by her acquitting State Minister K Ponmudi and his wife in the disproportionate assets case.
In the said case, the petitioner, who retired as the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Vellore, took objection to the observations made by the Judge of High Court Justice Anand Venkatesh in his suo motu revision order which re-opened the acquittal citing irregularities in the transfer and conduct of the trial.
The counsel, Senior Advocate Dr. S Muralidhar appeared for the petitioner before the Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition moved against the adverse comments in the suo motu revision order passed by the High Court on August 8, 2023.
The bench comprising of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra in the case observed and has disposed of the plea by giving the liberty to the petitioner to submit a response to the adverse observations before the single judge of the High Court who is now hearing the suo motu revision.
The Supreme Court in the case observed and has clarified that the observations made in the High Court’s order are of prima facie nature. The concerns were raised by Dr S Muralidhar during the hearing about these observations and its impact on the petitioner’s career.
It has been pleaded by him that these observations, “her i.e., the petitioner’s career as a judicial officer would come under a cloud without any opportunity to her to present her perspective before the Single Judge.
The court also noted that the grievance of the petitioner of not getting an opportunity to explain her “perspective”. Thus, the court in the case permitted her for filing the response of not getting an opportunity to explain her “perspective”.
The court also clarified that the same was being done to ease the petitioner’s burden to engage a counsel and to appear before the High Court, while considering the fact that she was a trial judge who demitted office.
Adding to it, the court stated that 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 in the case stated that the petitioner is at liberty to engage counsel to represent her before the Court and the different judge is now hearing the suo motu revision following the roster change of Justice Anand Venkatesh.
The court whole considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that the same bench refused to entertain the petitions filed by K Ponmudi and his wife against the suo motu revision order. Therefore, the court expressed doubts about the manner in which the trial was transferred and hailing the intervention made by Justice Venktesh. Further, the court gave liberty to the petitioners to raise their objections before the single judge of the High Court. Accordingly, the court dismissed the plea.
