Madras High Court Flags 2,423 Pending Corruption Cases, Directs State to Establish Dedicated Special Courts Under PC Act
Court category: High Court
Court / details: Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)
Location: Madurai / Thoothukudi / Tamil Nadu
In A. Shahul Hameed v. State of Tamil Nadu (Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 11066 of 2026), the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court held that 2,423 pending graft cases cannot be treated as routine additional work for Principal District Judges, directing dedicated Special Courts and prosecutors.
CASE DETAILS AT A GLANCE
Case Title: A. Shahul Hameed v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court Name: Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)
Coram / Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Pugalendhi
Case Number: Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 11066 of 2026
Order Date: 10.11.2026 (November 10, 2026)
1. Executive Summary
Hearing a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking speedy trial in a Prevention of Corruption Act case where only two witnesses had been examined in three years, Justice B. Pugalendhi of the Madurai Bench widened the inquiry across Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. Finding that 2,423 corruption cases were pending in Tamil Nadu as of June 30, 2026, while only eight districts had exclusive Special Courts, the Court issued systemic directions to equip dedicated trial infrastructure.
2. Key Judicial Observations
The Court suo motu impleaded the Home Secretary, the Director of Prosecution, and the Registrar General. Examining district-wise pendency, Justice Pugalendhi observed that 2,423 corruption trials cannot be treated as an ordinary workload to be added onto Principal District and Sessions Judges already burdened with regular sessions and civil appellate duties.
"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."
Drawing an analogy to time-bound trial infrastructure directions issued under Section 35 of the POCSO Act, the Court emphasized that the two-year statutory endeavour under Section 4(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be fulfilled merely by directing trial judges to expedite hearings without adequate courts and staff.
3. Operative Directions
- Special Courts & Staff: The State Government and High Court administration were directed to assess district-wise pendency and provide dedicated Special Courts, infrastructure, and full-time Special Public Prosecutors.
- Target for Petitioner's Trial: The Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi (who reported nearly 70 corruption cases pending) was given a six-month target to conclude the petitioner's trial.
Citation: Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) order in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 11066 of 2026 dated 10.11.2026. For criminal defence and High Court petitions, visit https://sklawhouse.com/practice or https://sklawhouse.com/contact-us.