2,423 graft cases, eight special courts: Madras HC bench orders State to equip PC Act trials
Hearing one accused who had seen two witnesses in three years, Justice B. Pugalendhi widened the case to the State, looked at pendency, special courts and prosecutors, and gave directions to the Registrar General, the Government and the prosecution.
Tamil Nadu had 2,423 corruption cases pending on 30 June 2026, and only eight districts have courts that try nothing else. On 10 November 2026 the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, hearing one accused’s plea for a faster trial, issued five directions on special courts, prosecutors and priority.
Justice B. Pugalendhi also gave a six-month target for that accused’s trial in Thoothukudi. He said the two-year mandate in the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be met by telling trial courts to hurry alone.
Two witnesses in three years
A. Shahul Hameed is the sole accused in Spl.C.No.13 of 2025 before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Thoothukudi. He faces trial under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 167 of the Indian Penal Code.
He came to the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 as Crl.OP(MD) 11066/2026. He asked for a direction to conclude the trial within a fixed time.
Mr L. Shaji Chellan, for the petitioner, relied on Section 4(4) of the Act, which calls for day-to-day trial and conclusion within two years. Charges were framed in 2023, he said, and in three years only two witnesses had been examined.
A case moved, and a queue built
Mr A. Robinson, Additional Public Prosecutor, explained the history. The case began before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi, as Spl.CC.No.2 of 2023.
Under the High Court’s administrative proceedings of 29 May 2025 it moved to the Principal District and Sessions Court and was renumbered. He said nearly 80 Prevention of Corruption Act cases were pending before that court.
The court called for a report from the Principal District and Sessions Judge. It said 70 such cases were pending, that the petitioner’s case had arrived only recently, and that it needed six months to conclude the trial.
What Section 4(4) requires
Justice Pugalendhi set out Section 4(4). Trials are to be held, as far as practicable, from day to day, with an endeavour to finish within two years. If the trial runs past that, the Special Judge must record reasons.
The period can be extended in writing by up to six months at a time, but together with the extensions it should not ordinarily exceed four years. The court noted that in Shahid Balwa v. Union of India the Supreme Court read the provision as reflecting the need for early disposal of bribery cases.
The petitioner’s analogy: the POCSO directions
Counsel drew an analogy with an order of the First Bench of this court, XXX v. Director General of Police, W.P.No.20751 of 2026, dated 29 July 2026.
That order directed the State and the High Court administration to provide infrastructure for time-bound trials under Section 35 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
He asked for similar directions on Section 4(4). Justice Pugalendhi found force in the analogy. The facts, he said, disclosed a larger issue about how the statutory mandate is being carried out.
Why the cases went to Sessions judges
Exclusive Special Courts exist in only eight districts. Elsewhere the cases go to the Principal District and Sessions Judges or Sessions Judges.
The court noted that the 2025 transfer from Chief Judicial Magistrates seems to have followed the BNSS coming into force. Section 10 of the old Code provided the cadre of Assistant Sessions Judge, which the BNSS removed.
Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, however, allows a Special Judge to be chosen from current or former Sessions Judges or Additional Sessions Judges. Justice Pugalendhi asked whether giving every case to Principal District and Sessions Judges, with Additional Judges available, would meet the Section 4(4) mandate.
Three respondents added, three reports filed
On 6 August 2026 the court suo motu added the Home Secretary, the Director of Prosecution and the Registrar General as respondents. It asked each for a report on district-wise pendency, the number of exclusive courts, the criteria for them, and steps to implement Section 4(4).
The Registrar General reported 2,423 pending cases in Tamil Nadu as on 30 June 2026, and 61 more in Puducherry, a total of 2,484. Eight Special Courts were earlier in the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division).
G.O.Ms.No.87 of the Home Department, dated 18 February 2026, upgraded all eight to the cadre of District Judge. In the other 30 districts the Principal District and Sessions Judges or Sessions Judges try these cases alongside regular work.
A proposal is pending on the High Court’s administrative side to designate Additional Sessions Courts as Special Courts. The Director of Prosecution confirmed that exclusive courts work in eight districts.
He added that Additional Public Prosecutors and Deputy Legal Advisors in the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption are deputation posts, under the administrative control of the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption.
Not an ordinary workload
The court said 2,423 pending cases cannot be treated as an additional task for Principal District and Sessions Judges. Corruption trials carry a specific mandate of day-to-day hearing, which cannot be met if the judges have no time left for them.
Prolonged pendency, the judge said, serves neither the public interest nor the accused. The prosecution must get a fair chance to prove its case, and the accused is equally entitled to have proceedings concluded within a reasonable time.
He called the pending proposal to designate Additional Sessions Courts a welcome step that deserves expeditious consideration. The upgrade of the eight courts to District Judge cadre was, he said, a step in the right direction but cannot by itself address pendency across the State.
Pendency is not the only test
On exclusive Special Courts, Justice Pugalendhi called for a uniform and objective assessment. Pendency matters, he said, but it need not be the only test.
The age of the pending cases, the number at the trial stage, the rate of new cases and the judicial strength in each district also bear on whether a separate court is needed.
He also noted that a Special Court cannot work without prosecutors and supporting staff. New courts must come with arrangements for prosecution.
The key finding was that the mandate “cannot be achieved merely by issuing directions to the trial Courts” (para 25). The judicial establishment must be organised so that the courts have time and resources, and the State, he added, shares that responsibility.
Five directions
The court directed the Registrar General to follow up the proposal pending before the committee concerned to designate Additional Sessions Courts, in addition to the Sessions Court, as Special Courts. The aim is to spread the work between Principal District and Sessions Judges and Additional District and Sessions Judges.
In districts without exclusive Special Courts, the Government, in consultation with the High Court, must examine whether they are needed, using district-wise pendency and workload, and act where warranted.
The State must give the High Court administration the infrastructure, supporting staff and facilities for existing and newly designated Special Courts.
The Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, with the Director of Prosecution, must ensure adequate prosecuting personnel for those courts, so that trials are not delayed for want of prosecutors.
Principal District and Sessions Judges and Sessions Judges handling these cases must give them due priority, try to hold day-to-day trials and conclude within the Section 4(4) period. Whenever the period is exceeded, the reasons must be recorded.
Order
On the petitioner’s own trial, the judge said the case reached the Principal District and Sessions Court only recently. Even so, charges were framed in 2023 and only two witnesses have been examined, and the petitioner “cannot be made to suffer on account of administrative arrangements” (para 27).
The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, must make every endeavour to conclude Spl.C.No.13 of 2025 within six months of receiving the order, without unnecessary adjournments and subject to the cooperation of the parties. The criminal original petition was disposed of on those terms.
The court also told the Registry to send a copy of the order to all Principal District and Sessions Judges and District and Sessions Judges, and to the Presiding Officers of Special Courts dealing with Prevention of Corruption Act cases throughout the State.