TN Minister Duraimurugan Approaches Madras High Court Challenging Transfer Of Disproportionate Case Against Him From Vellore To Chennai

When the matter came up before Justice M Dhandapani, the judge asked the matter to be posted along with another petition filed by the Minister challenging the criminal prosecution— which is pending before another judge.

It may be noted that in April this year, the Madras High Court had set aside the discharge of the Minister and his wife from the disproportionate asset case. The court had also directed the Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate to frame charges against the Minister and his wife and complete the trial within a period of six months.

The case against Durai Murugan was that while serving as the Minister for Public Works Department, Law and Prisons of the Government of Tamil Nadu during the period between 13.05.2006 and 14.05.2011, he had acquired and possessed pecuniary resources and properties in his name which was disproportionate to his known sources of income.

Challenging this, the Minister and his wife had argued that there was no prima facie material to show that they had disproportionate assets. It was submitted that they had given a satisfactory account supported by material evidence for the pecuniary resources, and there were no independent witnesses to prove the charges against them.

However, finding the special court's finding discharging the Minister as perverse, the High Court noted that the special court had traversed beyond the scope of Section 239 Cr.P.C The High court had noted that there were prima facie materials to proceed against the duo and the grounds taken by them were part of defence, which could be taken up at the time of trial.

Following the order of the High Court, the case was taken up by the Special Court for trial of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai. This has been challenged by the Minister now.

The Minister argued that the High Court had directed the Magistrate Court, Vellore, to proceed with the trial. However, a memo had been issued by the Special Court in Chennai. On inquiry, it was understood that the Government had issued a GO by which the investigation in the case had been transferred to the Special Court in Chennai.

Murugan argued that there were 72 prosecution witnesses and many defence witnesses, who were mainly from Vellore and neighbouring areas. He argued that if the trial is conducted in Chennai, there would be a substantial delay due to the unavailability of witnesses. He thus argued that if the trial was conducted in Chennai, it would prejudice the parties and there was a likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.

Case Title: D. Duraimurugan v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case No: WP 36218 of 2025