(MENAFN- IANS) New Delhi, Aug 18 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Monday stayed a Madras High Court order that had overturned the discharge of Tamil Nadu Rural Development Minister I. Periyasamy, his wife P. Suseela, and their sons, P. Prabhu and P. Senthilkumar, from a disproportionate assets case filed in 2012. The apex court directed the Minister and his family to face trial in the case.

A Bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta issued notice to the Tamil Nadu government on the petition filed by Periyasamy and his family, represented by senior advocate V. Giri and advocate Ram Sankar.

The petition challenged the High Court's April 28 ruling, which revived the case despite a trial court having discharged the accused in 2017.

Periyasamy argued that the case was politically-motivated and“foisted” on him when the AIADMK was in power in 2012.

He pointed out that a similar disproportionate assets case concerning the period 1996–2001 had been dismissed by the courts, including the Supreme Court.

The petition further maintained that his wife and sons had independent incomes and that the prosecution's case was built solely on income tax returns already accepted by the authorities.

It alleged that investigators had artificially inflated figures by duplicating capital account entries along with bank balances, thus creating a false impression of illegal wealth.

No unaccounted property or cash was recovered from the family, it argued.

The Supreme Court also linked the matter to another petition filed by Periyasamy. In that case, the court had in April 2024 stayed proceedings over the alleged allotment of a Tamil Nadu Housing Board plot in Mogappair to the personal security officer of then Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi in 2008–09, when Periyasamy was the Housing Minister.

The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption had registered the case in 2012 after DMK lost power to AIADMK. Though a special court discharged him in 2023 citing lack of sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court later revived the case while taking suo motu cognisance of corruption cases involving lawmakers.

Periyasamy has consistently argued that no trial can proceed against a sitting minister without the Governor's sanction.

MENAFN18082025000231011071ID1109940761