Supreme Court Upholds Madras High Court Decision
The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a petition from the Tamil Nadu government, which sought to challenge a decision by the Madras High Court that granted relief to former Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) minister EV Velu in an alleged multi-crore corruption case. The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, confirmed that the High Court had already instructed Velu to cooperate with the ongoing investigation.
Arguments From Both Sides
Representing the state, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the High Court had imposed a blanket prohibition on Velu’s arrest, despite there being no specific request for such a measure. In contrast, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, defending Velu, contended that the charges were politically motivated, emerging after a change in the Tamil Nadu government. He stated, “This is just the beginning. As an ex-minister, the moment the government changes, FIRs are filed. More cases will likely follow.”
Supreme Court’s Perspective
Justice Vikram Nath noted that similar actions might have been taken by the DMK government during its tenure, implying a pattern of political retaliation. In a somewhat humorous exchange, the Court remarked, “These actions are taken after proper legal advice. They will continue. Why worry? It’s good for you, be thankful.” However, Singhvi countered, asserting that the previous administration had not permitted the complaint to proceed.
Final Decision
Given the lack of convincing arguments from the Tamil Nadu government on the merits of their plea, the Supreme Court decided to dismiss it. The Madras High Court had earlier stayed a lookout notice against Velu with the condition that he appear before the investigating officer on July 15. During this period, Velu was shielded from any coercive action until July 28.
Background and Implications
This case highlights ongoing tensions between political parties in Tamil Nadu, with allegations of corruption and misuse of power surfacing as administrations change. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the judiciary’s role in balancing these political dynamics while ensuring legal processes are followed.
