'Judge Gave Verdict Post Retirement?' Another Order By Madras HC Judge T. Mathivanan Under SC Scanner

The Supreme Court sought a report from the Madras High Court after the CBI filed a petition against a single sentence order passed by retired High Court Judge Mathivanan, while he was in office.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought a report from the Madras High Court after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a petition against a single sentence order passed by retired High Court Judge Mathivanan, while he was in office. The probe agency has told the top court that the detailed reasons behind the single sentence order were only uploaded after the judge had demitted the office post retirement. 

The CBI has further informed the apex court that the Chief Justice of the high court has ordered fresh hearing of nine cases heard by Justice Mathivanan, of which the present case concerning a corruption case against an IRS officer is part.

The Supreme Court after hearing the CBI's counsel posed several questions to the Registrar General of Madras High Court regarding the single line order by Justice Mathivanan dated 15 May, 2017.

The court was informed that the petitioner had applied for a certified copy after the order was pronounced. But, the petitioner was orally informed by the Registry that detailed order is not received from the office of the judge.

It is pointed out in the petition that a certified copy of the impugned order was furnished to the petitioner on 26th July 2017. But, the reasons recorded by the judge were not available till the judge demitted the office. 

"Counsel for respondent invited our attention to HC PIO's response to RTI regarding the correct date of the order...The dispute raised by petitioner is not about the date mentioned in the reasoned judgement. The contention is that on 15 May 2017 the single line order was passed and till the date on which the judge demitted office the detailed reasons were not available," the top court noted while dictating order.

 The Supreme Court has now directed the Registrar General of Madras HC to furnish the following information by September end:

1) What is the date on which the judgment was received by the Registry from the office of the judge.

2) When the judgment and order was uploaded.

3) Whether there was any administrative direction by the Chief Justice for de novo hearing of 9 cases heard by the judge and whether the case subject matter of the current petition is included in that.

This is not the first time the former judge Justice Mathivanan has come under Supreme Court scanner. In one matter, the top court had set aside his ruling, the detailed portion of which was uploaded 5 months after his retirement.

In Februray, the Supreme Court had to set aside a Madras High Court verdict passed by Justice Mathivanan after observing that judge who delivered the verdict had retained the case files for a period of five months after his retirement and a reasoned order in the case was published on the website of the High Court only after that period.

A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan wrote in the order: “According to us, retaining the file of a case for a period of five months after demitting the office is an act of gross impropriety on the part of the learned judge. We cannot countenance what has been done in this case.”

These observations were made while allowing an appeal preferred by the CBI against the orders passed by Justice Mathivanan who had quashed a chargesheet filed by the central probe agency against businessman Naresh Prasad Agarwal of Chennai in a Rs 113 crore cheating case. By the same order dated April 17, 2017, the judge had also discharged the businessman’s son N. Ganesh Agarwal from the cheating case.