Pendency of 2,423 Corruption Cases Is Not an Ordinary Workload, Rules Madras High Court

Pendency of 2,423 Corruption Cases Is Not an Ordinary Workload, Rules Madras High Court in A. Shahul Hameed v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case: A. Shahul Hameed v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Date of Judgment: 10 November 2026
Court: Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)
Coram: Justice B. Pugalendhi
Proceedings: Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 11066 of 2026

Court Observation

“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.”

Summary

The Madras High Court has asked the Tamil Nadu government to examine the need for exclusive special courts to try corruption cases, after noting that 2,423 cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were pending across the State as on 30 June 2026. The order was passed on a petition by A. Shahul Hameed, the sole accused in a corruption trial before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Thoothukudi, who had sought a direction for a speedy trial under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Charges were framed in 2023, but only two witnesses had been examined in three years, even though Section 4(4) of the Act requires day-to-day trial as far as practicable and an endeavour to finish within two years.

The Court found that the facts disclosed a larger issue: exclusive special courts under the Act were functioning in only eight districts of Tamil Nadu, while in the other 30 districts Principal District and Sessions Judges hear corruption cases along with their regular work. It directed the Registrar General to follow up a pending administrative proposal to designate Additional Sessions Courts as Special Courts, and the State, in consultation with the High Court, to examine the need for exclusive Special Courts in districts without one and to provide the necessary infrastructure, staff and prosecuting personnel. The petitioner’s own trial is to be concluded within six months.

Key Holdings

  • The pendency of 2,423 corruption cases throughout the State cannot be viewed as an ordinary workload to be dealt with as an additional responsibility by the Principal District and Sessions Judges.
  • Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act allows Special Judges to be appointed from Sessions Judges or Additional Sessions Judges; the legislature has not confined the role to Principal District Judges.
  • Prolonged pendency of corruption cases neither serves the public interest nor advances the interests of the accused, who is equally entitled to have the proceedings concluded within a reasonable time.
  • The responsibility to ensure timely trials does not rest with the judiciary alone; the State Government also has a corresponding responsibility to provide the necessary infrastructure, staff and prosecuting personnel.

Directions Issued

  • The Registrar General is to follow up the proposal to designate Additional Sessions Courts as Special Courts so that the workload is shared.
  • The Government, in consultation with the High Court, is to examine the need for exclusive Special Courts in districts without one and act where warranted, and to extend infrastructure, staff and facilities to existing and new Special Courts.
  • The Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, with the Director of Prosecution, is to ensure adequate prosecutors.
  • Sessions judges are to give priority to these cases, hold day-to-day trials where practicable, and record reasons whenever the statutory period is exceeded.
  • The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, is to make every endeavour to conclude the petitioner’s trial within six months, without unnecessary adjournments.
  • The Registry is to send the order to all Principal District Judges and Special Court presiding officers in the State.

Background

The petitioner’s case was first before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi, and was moved to the Principal District and Sessions Court under the High Court’s administrative proceedings of 29 May 2025. The Principal District Judge reported nearly 70 corruption cases pending in that court and sought six months to conclude the petitioner’s trial. The Court suo motu impleaded the Home Secretary, the Director of Prosecution and the Registrar General and called for district-wise data, which showed 2,423 pending cases in Tamil Nadu and 61 in Puducherry. The order was reserved on 7 August 2026 and pronounced on 10 November 2026.

Related Articles

Judgment Link: Read the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer: This is a summary prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should refer to the official judgment for the authoritative text.

Tags: , ,