CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has directed the DVAC to file a counter-affidavit to the criminal revision petition filed by former minister and senior DMK leader M R K Panneerselvam and his family members seeking to discharge from a disproportionate assets case.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan, after hearing both sides, told the DVAC to file the counter-affidavit by July 30. He also exempted Panneerselvam, his wife P Senthamizhselvi and son P Kathiravan from appearing before the principal sessions and district court in Cuddalore.
The matter pertains to the FIR registered in 2011 against Panneerselvam for allegedly amassing Rs 3.01 crore during his tenure as health minister in 2006-11. The case was heard by the chief judicial magistrate court in Cuddalore which discharged the former minister and his family from the case in 2016 after finding the disproportionate assets amounted to 6.4% well below the permitted level of 10%.
The DVAC filed an appeal against the order in the Madras High Court which set aside the CJM’s order in 2025. Subsequently, the case was taken back to file and was transferred to the principal sessions and district judge. Panneerselvam and his family again approached the PDJ for discharging them from the case but the plea was turned down on June 30, 2026. Challenging this order, they have approached the high court with the criminal revision petition.
Senior counsel R Shunmugasundaram, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the PDJ court’s decision to take cognizance of the case shall be set aside as it is defective since the valid sanction either under section 197 of CrPC or section 19 (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for prosecution of offences charged under section 13 (2) r /w 13 (1) (e) of the PCA r/w section 109 of IPC was not obtained by the DVAC. He said the petitioner was a cabinet minister when the PDJ court took cognizance of the matter in 2025 and so due sanction ought to have been obtained by the governor then.
However, additional public prosecutor Arun Anbumani representing the DVAC, contended that such prior sanction under these sections is not necessary as the case was only transferred from the CJM court to the PDJ and, at the time of registration of the FIR and filing of the chargesheet, Panneerselvam was not even an MLA as he lost the 2011 polls.