On 25th August, Justice N Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court declined to pursue contempt of court charges against RS Bharathi, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) organisation secretary, and others who criticised him for reviewing the acquittal and discharge of three sitting DMK Ministers in disproportionate assets cases against them.
Advocate R Krishnamurthy had urged him to take action against Bharathi. However, Justice Venkatesh said, “Those who cannot tolerate criticism are unfit to hold public office.” Adv Krishnamurthy contended that the DMK member’s criticism of the judge and accusations of mala fides in the suo motu revision proceedings amounted to contempt of Court.
Justice Venkatesh said, “Let anyone talk anything. I know that I have been acting true to my conscience. I am sitting in this office consciously and performing my duties, knowing very well that I would get brickbats, too, for my work, but that will never prevent me from working effectively as a judge of this Court.”
While speaking in Tamil, he stated that only they know if they have acted honestly. They mentioned that others may have multiple interpretations but will not get involved in those discussions. Their priority is taking care of the last litigant standing before the Court, and they are more concerned about that than anything else.
Justice Venkatesh oversees cases against Members of Parliament and the Legislative Assembly (MPs and MLAs). Recently, he took it upon himself to review the acquittal of Tamil Nadu Higher Education Minister K Ponmudi and his wife, as well as the discharge of State Finance and Revenue ministers Thangam Thennarasu and KSSR Ramachandran in cases involving disproportionate assets.
Justice Venkatesh expressed his concern about handling the cases involving Tamil Nadu Higher Education Minister K Ponmudi, his wife and State Finance and Revenue ministers Thangam Thennarasu and KSSR Ramachandran. He suggested that the courts, the defence, and the prosecution may have worked together to protect the accused Ministers. Following the verdict, Bharathi accused the judge of being selective in taking up cases related to DMK ministers.
Speaking to media persons at the DMK headquarters, Anna Arivalayam said that though the courts have the authority to take suo motu cognisance of the cases, the said judge appeared to have “acted with a malafide intention”. When asked if DMK was seeing it as a political intervention, he said, “I will not call it political intervention, but justice Anand Venkatesh has acted with a malafide intention. The judge had selected the case on a “pick and choose” basis. Already when he took up a case in a similar fashion in 2022, the Supreme Court pulled him up.”
