The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu government to examine the necessity of establishing additional special courts for the trial of corruption cases. The direction was issued after the court took judicial notice of the pendency of 2,423 cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act across the State as of June 30, 2026. Justice B Pugalendhi observed that the existing judicial infrastructure is insufficient to comply with the statutory mandate for expeditious disposal.
The order was passed on a petition filed by A Shahul Hameed, an accused facing trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code. Advocate L Shaji Chellan appeared for the petitioner, while Additional Public Prosecutor A Robinson, Government Advocate S Sivasubramanian, and Advocate D Venkatesh represented the respondents.
Statutory Mandate for Day-to-Day Trial
The court examined whether the current infrastructure allows compliance with Section 4(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The provision requires that trials be conducted on a day-to-day basis, as far as practicable, with an endeavour to conclude proceedings within two years. Justice Pugalendhi held that merely directing trial courts to adhere to the two-year timeline would not achieve the legislative objective unless adequate infrastructure and personnel are provided.
Quoting from the order, the bench stated that the very purpose of the statutory mandate would be defeated if the courts entrusted with these cases are unable to devote the requisite time and attention on account of their other judicial and administrative responsibilities. The court emphasized that corruption cases cannot be treated as an additional responsibility of Principal District and Sessions Judges, particularly when the law contemplates their expeditious disposal.
What is the statutory timeline for corruption trials under the Prevention of Corruption Act?
Section 4(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act mandates that trials be conducted on a day-to-day basis, as far as practicable, with an endeavour to conclude proceedings within two years from the date of filing the charge sheet.
Inadequate Coverage of Exclusive Special Courts
The bench noted that exclusive special courts under the Act are functioning in only eight districts of Tamil Nadu. In the remaining 30 districts, corruption cases are being heard by Principal District and Sessions Judges alongside their regular judicial and administrative duties. The court observed that the pendency of 2,423 cases throughout the State cannot be viewed as an ordinary workload to be dealt with as an additional responsibility by these judges.
Comparison: Special Courts vs Principal District Judges
Aspect | Exclusive Special Courts | Principal District & Sessions Judges |
|---|---|---|
Districts Covered | 8 districts | 30 districts |
Focus | Exclusive trial of corruption cases | Corruption cases as additional responsibility |
Capacity for Day-to-Day Trial | High | Constrained by administrative duties |
Directions to State and High Court Administration
The court noted that a proposal to designate additional sessions courts as Special Courts under the Act is already pending before the High Court administration. Describing the proposal as a welcome step, the bench directed the Registrar General to pursue the matter expeditiously.
The State government was directed to examine the need for additional special courts, provide necessary infrastructure and supporting staff, and ensure the availability of adequate prosecuting personnel. Furthermore, the court directed sessions judges to prioritise corruption cases and endeavour to conduct trials on a daily basis, wherever practicable.
The matter was listed for further compliance reporting. The decision underscores the judiciary's insistence that statutory timelines for corruption trials require corresponding investment in judicial infrastructure and human resources.