The record
Written from the 1 report below. Nothing here is unsourced.
- The Madras High Court ruled that police do not require government sanction to prosecute public servants for possessing disproportionate assets.
- The court determined that amassing illegal wealth lacks any reasonable connection to the discharge of official duties.
- This ruling dismissed a petition from former minister M.R.K.
- Panneerselvam to be discharged from a long-standing corruption case.
- The decision clarifies legal requirements for prosecuting officials under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
What to watch next
- Review of the High Court Registry report on the clogging of special courts by the Chief Justice
- Further proceedings in the ongoing 2011 disproportionate assets case against M.R.K. Panneerselvam
Who said what2
Only words found exactly in the article are shown, attributed and linked to the line they came from.
V. Lakshminarayanan
Judge
2 quotes · 1 outlet
“Amassing wealth beyond known sources of income cannot be treated as one having nexus to discharging official duty.”
In the article
…had a reasonable connection or nexus with the discharge of the official duties by a public servant. “The allegation in the present case is under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Amassing wealth beyond known sources of income cannot be treated as one having nexus to discharging official duty. While Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been engrafted for the purpose of protecting serving and retired public servants, it is not necessary to take such sanction when the alleged offence has no nexus to…
“The effect of a withdrawal of the SLP is that the order of this Court dated April 15, 2025 stood confirmed. Nowhere did the Supreme Court hold the order passed in allowing the revision is set aside.”
In the article
…the top court was withdrawn. Rejecting the argument that withdrawal of the SLP with liberty to approach the appropriate forum would amount to the top court having set aside the High Court’s order, the judge said: “ The effect of a withdrawal of the SLP is that the order of this Court dated April 15, 2025 stood confirmed. Nowhere did the Supreme Court hold the order passed in allowing the revision is set aside. ” The judge also found that transfer of cases pending against MPs and MLAs from the Chief Judicial Magistrates to the Principal District and Sessions Judges, after designating the latter as special courts, was not…
Coverage1
All filed from India
Named India · Arun Anbumani · Cuddalore Principal District and Sessions Court · Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption · Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam · Madras High Court · M. Karunanidhi · M.R.K. Panneerselvam · P. Kathiravan · P. Senthamizhselvi · P. Velmurugan · Supreme Court · V. Lakshminarayanan
The 1 report is listed beside the record.
Ask this story
Answers cite the reports above, or say they can't.