Madras HC to take up today MRK Panneerselvam’s plea to be discharged from 2011 disproportionate assets case

Former Minister M.R.K. Panneerselvam of the DMK and his family members have approached the Madras High Court to get discharged from a disproportionate assets case booked against them by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC) in 2011.

Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan would be hearing on Monday (July 13, 2026) the criminal revision petition filed jointly by the former Minister, his wife P. Senthamizhselvi and son P. Kathiravan against the Cuddalore Principal District and Sessions Court’s June 30, 2026 refusal to discharge them from the case.

The charge against the accused was that they were unable to satisfactorily account for ₹3.01 crore in their possession during the check period between April 15, 2006 and March 21, 2011 when Mr. Panneerselvam had served as Health Minister in the then Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi’s Cabinet.

This is the second occasion that the accused are seeking to discharge them from the same case. Their first discharge plea, filed in 2013, was allowed by the Cuddalore Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) on February 3, 2016. However, the DVAC immediately filed a revision petition against the discharge order.

Justice P. Velmurugan had allowed the DVAC’s 2016 revision plea on April 25, 2025 and reversed the CJM’s discharge order. Holding that the discharge order was “perverse” and that the accused must necessarily face trial, the judge had directed the trial court to dispose of the case within six months.

Though the accused had taken the High Court’s reversal order on appeal to the Supreme Court, the special leave petition was dismissed as withdrawn on August 12, 2025. Thereafter, on November 20, 2025 Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira of the High Court dismissed as withdrawn their another plea to quash the charge sheet.

On February 24, 2026, Justice Chandira also granted six more months for the trial court to dispose of the case. In the meantime, all three accused filed their second discharge plea before the sessions court and contended that the DVAC had failed to obtain sanction from the Governor before intiating prosecution.

However, the sessions court rejected their contention and held there was no necessity to obtain prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 since the First Information Report (FIR) in the present case had been registered only after Mr. Panneerselvam demitted office as Minister.

The sessions court pointed out the DVAC had received discreet information, regarding the accumulation of wealth disproportionate to known sources of income, on July 8, 2011 and registered the FIR on October 3, 2011. The agency had completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet on June 18, 2012.

Assailing the sessions court’s June 30, 2026 order in the present revision, the accused contended that the trial court had failed to appreciate that the entire charge sheet was liable to be set aside and they were entitled to be discharged from the case for the failure on the part of the prosecution to obtain prior sanction.