Petitioner asks SC to transfer DA cases against 2 TN ministers to another state

Two separate transfer petitions have been filed before the Supreme Court by Kalyan Raman, a lawyer practising in Tirunelveli and a known right-wing activist associated with Hindu nationalist causes and BJP activities in Tamil Nadu.

The petitions seek the transfer of long-pending disproportionate assets (DA) cases against Tamil Nadu Finance Minister Thangam Thennarasu, and Revenue and Disaster Management Minister KKSSR Ramachandran from the Special Court for MPs/MLAs in Virudhunagar district (Srivilliputhur), Tamil Nadu, to a competent court in any other state.

'Impartial, objective trial'

The petitioner said, "We specifically requested that the probe be transferred to an investigating agency outside Tamil Nadu, similar to the approach adopted in the DA case against former Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa. The High Court held that a criminal case may be transferred when it appears that the dispensation of criminal justice is not possible in an impartial, objective, and bias-free manner before a particular court or at a particular place, particularly where public confidence in the fairness of the trial is likely to be undermined.

"The Hon’ble Court emphasised that the apprehension need not be imaginary or speculative, but must be reasonable and founded on surrounding circumstances."

Also Read: TN ministers Ramachandran and Thenarasu to face trial in wealth case: HC

The petitions, registered as Diary No 5107/2026 (against Thangam Thennarasu) and Diary No 5108/2026 (against KKSSR Ramachandran), were filed on January 25, 2026, and are currently marked as “PENDING”. The first case is tentatively slated for listing on February 13.

The cases originate from allegations of possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income during the check periods when the two ministers held public office under the previous DMK regime (2006–2011).

Thangam Thennarasu (Spl Case No. 20/2019)

FIR No 3/2012 registered by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), Virudhunagar.

Check period: May 15, 2006 to March 31, 2010 (when Thennarasu was Minister for School Education).

Charge sheet filed on November 15, 2012, alleging disproportionate assets of Rs 74,85,493.

Accused: Thennarasu (A1) and his wife T Manimegalai (A2).

KKSSR Ramachandran (Spl Case No. 19/2019)

Crime No. 10/2011, later FIR in 2012 by DVAC, Virudhunagar.

Check period: April 1, 2006 to March 31, 2010 (when Ramachandran was Minister for Health and later Backward Classes).

Charge sheet filed on September 5, 2012, alleging disproportionate assets of approximately Rs 44,59,067 (with additional abetment allegations against a third accused).

Accused: Ramachandran (A1), his wife Aadhilakshmi (A2), and KS Shanmugamoorthy (A3).

Also Read: DVAC conducts searches at AIADMK ex-minister P Thangamani's premises

Both cases were investigated by the DVAC when the accused were in the Opposition during the AIADMK regime (2011–21). Cognisance was taken, and charges were framed.

Back as ministers

After the DMK returned to power in 2021 and both individuals became ministers again, supplementary “final closure reports” were filed on October 28, 2022. The Special Court discharged the accused Thennarasu on December 12, 2022, and Ramachandran on July 20, 2023.

In a stinging suo motu criminal revision order dated August 7, 2024, Justice N Anand Venkatesh, a single judge of the Madras High Court, set aside both discharge orders, describing the developments as the “grossest abuse of judicial process resulting in miscarriage of justice” and a “well-orchestrated pattern” to derail prosecutions once the accused regained power.

The DVAC appeared to have been “manoeuvred” to conduct “further investigation” that hunted for material favourable to the accused rather than uncovering truth, he said.

The filing of a “final closure report” under Section 173(8) CrPC, a document the court termed “hitherto unknown to criminal law”, effectively nullified the original charge sheets. The Special Court “fell into or was willing to fall into an error” by accepting the closure reports without questioning the anomalous procedure, it was observed.

Also Read: Setback for TN minister Periyasamy as Madras HC dismisses plea against ED probe

The court stressed its “sacrosanct constitutional duty” to intervene to prevent subversion of justice, emphasising that “politicians and the common man… will be equal before the Courts”.

The ministers challenged the High Court orders in the Supreme Court. The operation of the suo motu orders remains stayed (stay granted in September 2024 for Thennarasu and April 2024 for Ramachandran, later extended).

The petitioner, Kalyan Raman, has invoked Section 406 CrPC (now Section 446 BNSS) seeking transfer of both trials outside Tamil Nadu, citing a reasonable apprehension that a fair, impartial, and bias-free trial is not possible within the state.

Key grounds for petition

Both accused are serving cabinet ministers in the Tamil Nadu government, which exercises administrative and executive control over DVAC and public prosecutors.

The timing of the closure reports immediately after they assumed office in 2021 raises serious doubts about institutional independence.

Also Watch: Watch: TN minister K Ponmudy gets 3 years in jail in disproportionate assets case

Inherent conflict of interest : Public prosecutors represent the state, creating a conflict when the state must prosecute its own senior ministers.

High Court’s prima facie findings: The Madras High Court’s observations of an “orchestrated plan” to torpedo prosecutions and the Special Court’s acquiescence provide concrete material for apprehension of bias.

Precedents relied upon

K Anbazhagan vs Superintendent of Police (2004) – DA case against J Jayalalithaa transferred from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka due to reasonable apprehension of political influence.

Abdul Nazar Madani (2000), Nahar Singh Yadav (2011), Gurcharan Das Chadha (1966) – Emphasising that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done; reasonable apprehension (not proof of actual bias) suffices for transfer.

The petitions argue that continuation in Tamil Nadu would violate Article 14 (equality) and Article 21 (fair trial) guarantees, undermine public confidence, and perpetuate delay while the ministers’ appeals against the High Court orders remain pending.

Also Read: I-T Department seizes properties worth ₹100 crore from Sasikala

While primarily seeking transfer of the trials, the petitions also express concern over the integrity of the earlier investigation and suggest the need for an independent mechanism insulated from state government influence.

No other transfer petitions for these cases are pending, as stated in the filings. As the matters await listing before the Supreme Court, the development has reignited debate over the independence of anti-corruption probes involving powerful political figures in Tamil Nadu.