Can Ponmudy be reinstated? Govt studying after SC stay
The election department recently notified the Tirukovilur assembly seat as vacant after the Madras High Court convicted the sitting MLA Ponmudy.
Former Minister K Ponmudy
CHENNAI: With the Supreme Court on Monday staying the conviction and sentence of former minister and senior DMK leader K Ponmudy in a disproportionate asset (DA) case, the State’s top officials have begun consultations with legal luminaries regarding the verdict and its implication over the status of Ponmudy – whether he will continue as a MLA or not.
A bench led by Justice Abhay S Oka and comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan suspended the conviction and three years imprisonment imposed on the former minister. However, the bench refused to suspend the conviction of P Visalatchi, wife of Ponmudy. Further, the bench also directed Visalatchi to approach a special court for bail. The judgment is seen as a major interim relief for the DMK strongman based in Villupuram.
According to secretariat sources, the election department recently notified the Tirukovilur assembly seat as vacant after the Madras High Court convicted the sitting MLA Ponmudy. Now with the Supreme Court staying the verdict, the state officials have started exploring whether Ponmudy can return to the assembly as MLA or even get back to the state cabinet as minister.
“His MLA position will be restored, just like Rahul Gandhi. But if he is inducted as a minister, whether TN Governor Ravi will administer the oath of office is doubtful,” opined retired judge Justice K Chandru, when contacted. “But there will be a tussle. In Senthilbalaji’s case, the Governor quickly retrieved his action of dismissal. While that is expulsion, this is inclusion. The Governor has no option except to administer the oath in case of inclusion. If he (the Governor) does not do so, they (the State) must explore alternative methods,” Chandru added.
According to retired Justice Chandru, the Governor has no option except to administer the oath when it comes to ‘inclusion’, unlike in Senthilbalaji’s case, which is ‘expulsion’. If he (the Governor) does not do so, they (the state) must explore alternative methods, Chandru added.
“His MLA post was disqualified based on the court verdict and now the apex court has stayed the verdict. This is a constitutional issue. We have to explore the legal jurisprudence over the case and the check precedence,” said a top official when contacted.
In the case of Rahul Gandhi’s defamation case, the SC stayed the verdict and Rahul returned to Parliament. In the case of Ponmudy, it is a DA case. But, when the court stays the verdict, the conviction stays suspended, the official said.
It may be noted that in 2002 the DVAC registered a case against Ponmudy, his wife, his mother-in-law and two others under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, for acquiring properties which were disproportionate to his known sources of income from 1996 to 2001 when he was a minister in the DMK regime. Later, in 2023, Ponmudy became a Minister in the present regime the Vellore court discharged him and his wife from the case.
Raising suspicion in the manner in which the principal district court in Vellore cleared Ponmudy from the DA case, Justice N Anand Venkatesh, in August last year, initiated suo motu criminal revision against the order passed by the trial court and issued notice to Ponmudy.
On December 19, 2023, after hearing the arguments, Justice G Jayachandran, who held the MP/MLAs cases portfolio, convicted the couple. The judge held that the couple amassed 64.90 per cent of assets over their known source of income and sentenced them to 3 years of simple imprisonment with a fine.
