The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu government to examine the need for establishing additional special courts to try corruption cases after taking note of the pendency of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act across the State [A Shahul Hameed v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others].
Justice B Pugalendhi of the Madurai Bench observed that corruption cases could not be treated as an additional responsibility of principal district and sessions judges, particularly when the law contemplated their expeditious disposal.
"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 Court said.
The Court noted that exclusive special courts under the Prevention of Corruption Act were functioning in only eight districts of Tamil Nadu. In the remaining 30 districts, corruption cases were being heard by principal district and sessions judges alongside their regular judicial and administrative responsibilities.
The order was passed on a petition filed by A Shahul Hameed, an accused facing trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code.
While considering the petition, the High Court examined whether the existing judicial infrastructure was sufficient to comply with Section 4(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The provision requires corruption trials to be conducted on a day-to-day basis, as far as practicable, with an endeavour to conclude proceedings within two years.
The Court observed that merely directing trial courts to dispose of cases within two years would not achieve the statutory objective unless adequate infrastructure and personnel were provided.
"The very purpose of such a mandate would be defeated if the Courts entrusted with these cases are unable to devote the requisite time and attention to them on account of their other judicial and administrative responsibilities," it said.
The Court noted that a proposal was already pending before the High Court administration to designate additional sessions courts as Special Courts under the Act. Describing the proposal as a welcome step, it directed the Registrar General to pursue the matter.
The State government was directed to examine the need for additional special courts, provide necessary infrastructure and supporting staff, and ensure adequate prosecuting personnel.
The Court also directed sessions judges to prioritise corruption cases and endeavour to conduct trials daily, wherever practicable.
Advocate L Shaji Chellan appeared for the petitioner.
Additional Public Prosecutor A Robinson, Government Advocate S Sivasubramanian and Advocate D Venkatesh appeared for the respondents.
[Read Judgment]