State Must Provide Infrastructure & Staff: Madras High Court Flags 2,423 Pending Corruption Cases; Issues Directions

After noting 2,423 pending PC Act cases in Tamil Nadu, the Court issued directions on additional Special Courts, workload distribution, prosecutors and priority hearings.

The Court was hearing a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking expeditious disposal of a trial under Section 7(a) of the PC Act and Section 167 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Only two witnesses had been examined after charges were framed.

A Bench of Justice B. Pugalendhi observed: “This Court is of the view that the statutory mandate under Section 4(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be achieved merely by issuing directions to the trial Courts to dispose of cases within two years. The judicial establishment must also be organised in such a manner that the Courts entrusted with the trial of these cases have sufficient time and resources to comply with the mandate. The responsibility to ensure this does not rest with the judiciary alone. The State Government also has a corresponding responsibility to provide the necessary infrastructure, staff and prosecuting personnel.”

Advocate L. Shaji Chellan appeared for the petitioner. Additional Public Prosecutor A. Robinson represented the first and third respondents; Government Advocate S. Sivasubramanian represented the State Home Department; and Advocate D. Venkatesh appeared for the Registrar General.

Background

The petitioner invoked Section 4(4) of the PC Act, which requires day-to-day trial, as far as practicable, and an endeavour to conclude proceedings within two years. The prosecutor reported nearly 80 PC Act cases before the trial court, while its Presiding Officer reported 70 and sought six months to conclude this trial.

Finding a wider institutional issue, the Court suo motu impleaded the State Home Secretary, Director of Prosecution and Registrar General and sought reports on pendency, existing Special Courts and the feasibility of additional courts.

The Registrar General reported 2,423 pending cases in Tamil Nadu and 61 in Puducherry. Eight Tamil Nadu districts had exclusive Special Courts; Sessions Courts handled PC Act cases alongside regular work in the remaining 30. A proposal to designate Additional Sessions Courts was pending.

Court's Observations

Pendency Could Not Be Treated As Additional Routine Work

The Court noted that Section 4(4) requires day-to-day trials, as far as practicable, and an endeavour to conclude them within two years. Extensions require recorded reasons and ordinarily cannot take the aggregate beyond four years. Shahid Balwa v. Union of India (2014) also recognised the need for early disposal.

The Court observed: “The pendency of 2,423 cases throughout the State, as on 30.06.2026, cannot be viewed as an ordinary workload to be dealt with as an additional responsibility by the Principal District and Sessions Judges. The trials under the Prevention of Corruption Act are governed by a specific statutory mandate requiring day-to-day hearing, as far as practicable, and an endeavour to conclude the trial within the prescribed period. The very purpose of such a mandate would be defeated if the Courts entrusted with these cases are unable to devote the requisite time and attention to them on account of their other judicial and administrative responsibilities.

Corruption cases involve allegations affecting public administration and the integrity of public services. Prolonged pendency of such cases neither serves the public interest nor does it advance the interests of the accused. While the prosecution is entitled to a fair opportunity to establish its case, the accused is equally entitled to have the proceedings concluded within a reasonable time.”

Additional Sessions Judges Could Share The Workload

The Court noted that Section 3 of the PC Act permits the appointment of Special Judges from among persons who are or have been Sessions Judges or Additional Sessions Judges. The legislation did not restrict such appointments to Principal District and Sessions Judges.

It held: “The availability of Additional District and Sessions Judges in the judicial establishment is a relevant factor which cannot be overlooked while making arrangements for the trial of cases under the Act. The administrative proposal already pending before this Court for designating Additional Sessions Courts as Special Courts under the Prevention of Corruption Act is, in this regard, a welcome step. Such an arrangement would enable the workload to be distributed and would ensure that the Principal District and Sessions Judges alone are not burdened with the responsibility of conducting all PC Act trials in districts where exclusive Special Courts have not been constituted. The proposal deserves to be considered expeditiously, keeping in view the statutory mandate and the existing pendency.”

The Court said the assessment should consider pendency, the age and stage of cases, new filings and available judicial strength.

Additional Courts Required Staff And Prosecutors

The Court described upgrading the eight existing Special Courts as a step in the right direction but insufficient to address statewide pendency.

It observed: “The State Government and the High Court administration must work in coordination to ensure that the judicial establishment, supporting staff and prosecuting personnel are adequate to meet the requirements of these Courts. The clarification furnished by the Director of Prosecution regarding the deputation of Additional Public Prosecutors / Deputy Legal Advisors to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption also assumes significance. The constitution or designation of additional Special Courts must be accompanied by adequate arrangements for prosecution. A Special Court cannot effectively discharge its statutory responsibility if the requisite prosecuting officers and supporting personnel are not made available.”

Conclusion

The Court directed the Registrar General to pursue the pending proposal to designate Additional Sessions Courts as PC Act Special Courts. It directed the Government, in consultation with the High Court, to assess the need for exclusive Special Courts in districts without them and to provide the necessary infrastructure, staff and facilities.

The Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and Director of Prosecution were directed to ensure adequate prosecuting personnel. Courts handling PC Act cases must give them due priority, endeavour to conduct day-to-day trials and record reasons whenever the statutory period is exceeded.

The trial court was directed to endeavour to conclude the petitioner's case within six months without unnecessary adjournments, subject to cooperation. The petition was disposed of, and the Registry was directed to circulate the order to all district courts and PC Act Special Courts statewide.

Cause Title: A. Shahul Hameed v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Click here to read/download Judgment