The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has issued significant directions to the Tamil Nadu Government and the High Court administration to improve the infrastructure and functioning of courts handling corruption cases. The Court stressed that trials under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, must receive priority and should not remain pending for years because of inadequate judicial resources.
Background
The petitioner is facing trial in Special Case No.13 of 2025 before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Thoothukudi, for alleged offences under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 167 of the Indian Penal Code.
His counsel submitted that charges had been framed in 2023, but only two witnesses had been examined in approximately three years. Relying on Section 4(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the petitioner sought a direction for speedy disposal.
The provision requires Special Judges, as far as practicable, to conduct trials on a day-to-day basis and endeavour to complete them within two years.
During the proceedings, the High Court examined the larger problem of delays in corruption trials across Tamil Nadu. According to the Registrar General's report, 2,423 Prevention of Corruption Act cases were pending in Tamil Nadu as of June 30, 2026. Another 61 cases were pending in Puducherry.
The Court noted that exclusive Special Courts were functioning in only eight districts, while corruption cases in the remaining 30 districts were being handled by Principal District and Sessions Judges or Sessions Judges alongside their regular judicial responsibilities.
Expressing concern over the situation, 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 Court further emphasised that prolonged proceedings affect both public interest and the rights of accused persons.
It observed:
"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."
The Court directed the Registrar General to pursue the proposal for designating Additional Sessions Courts as Special Courts under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It also directed the State Government, in consultation with the High Court, to examine the need for establishing exclusive Special Courts in districts where they are not currently functioning.
The State Government was directed to provide adequate infrastructure and supporting staff. The Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, in coordination with the Director of Prosecution, was also directed to ensure the availability of sufficient prosecuting personnel.
The Court made it clear:
"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."
Considering the delay in the petitioner's case, the High Court directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, to make every endeavour to conclude the trial in Special Case No.13 of 2025 within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, without granting unnecessary adjournments and subject to the cooperation of the parties.
With these directions, the Criminal Original Petition was disposed of.
Case Details
Case Title: A. Shahul Hameed v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Case Number: Crl.OP(MD) No.11066 of 2026
Judge: Justice B. Pugalendhi
Decision Date: 10 November 2026
