Ramkumar PK vs The Registrar General
- Court
- Madras High Court
WP(MD) No. 30029 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.D.SUMATHI
WP(MD) No. 30029 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011462132026}
AND
WMP(MD) No.22912, 22914 & 22915 of 2026
Ramkumar PK,
No.69, Pothis Nagar,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli District.
..Petitioner
Vs
1. The Registrar General
High Court of Madras
High Court Campus
Chennai.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Thoothukudi City Sub Division
Thoothukudi.
(in Crime No.533 of 2019).
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Thoothukudi Rural Sub Division
Thoothukudi.
(in Crime No.48 of 2023).
..Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of CERTIORARI, calling for the
records of the impugned order in Notification No. 160 of 2026, ROC
Nos.96229-A/2026-B2 97199- A/2026-B2 and 99674-A/2026-B2 dated
__________
Page 1 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:49:53 am )
WP(MD) No. 30029 of 2026
18.09.2026 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same as far as the
transferring of the Learned Presiding Judge of the Special Court of Trial
of Cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Thoothukudi or alternatively permit the
Learned Presiding Judge who is transferred to the Special Court of Trial
of Cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Tenkasi District as Sessions Judge
under the impugned proceedings to proceed with the Trial of the cases in
S.C. Nos.62 and 63 of 2020 and S.C. No.25 of 2023 on the file of the
Learned Special Court of Trial of Cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act,
Thoothukudi.
For Petitioner :Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
For Respondents :Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen For R1
Mr.I.Murugesan,
Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 &
R3
ORDER
(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
What makes a good judgement? A judgement authored by one
who had conducted the trial and observed the demeanour of the
witnesses. It is something akin to what Justice Benjamin Cardozo
described as the application of “lived experiences” in adjudication. No
doubt, Section 365 of BNSS, 2023 enables a Judge or Magistrate to act
on the evidence recorded by his predecessor. But the succeeding Judge
would certainly be at some disadvantage. Section 315 mandates the
__________
Page 2 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:49:53 am )
WP(MD) No. 30029 of 2026
Judge or Magistrate recording the evidence of a witness to record such
remarks (if any) as he thinks material respecting the demeanour of such
witness while under examination. This provision corresponds to Section
280 of Cr.PC. But not everything can be reduced into writing. Certain
impressions may even defy description though they may stay vividly in
the judge’s mind. The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein famously
remarked “ That of which we cannot speak, we must pass over in silence ”.
We refer to this statement only to underline the point that language is an
inherently limited tool. All psycho-cognitive experiences cannot be
expressed in words. However, they do have their own value. This vital
input would be lost if the person who observed the witnesses in flesh and
blood, does not write the judgement.
2. Since such considerations weighed with us, we formed a definite
conclusion that the Special Judge trying the subject cases should continue
to do so. The facts are a little special.
3. One P.K.Sivakumar, who was a practising lawyer, was murdered
on 21.08.2019 right in front of the court complex at Thoothukudi at
10.00 am. Crime No.533 of 2019 was registered on the file of
Thoothukudi South Police Station. Since the victim belonged to
__________
Page 3 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:49:53 am )
WP(MD) No. 30029 of 2026
Scheduled Caste, offences were accordingly registered. Final report was
filed and it was taken on file in S.C No.62 of 2020 the file of the Special
Court of Trial of Cases under SC & ST (PoA) Act, Thoothukudi.
4.The prime witness in Sivakumar murder’s case was his brother
P.K.Muthukumar who was also a practising lawyer. He too was
murdered on 22.02.2023. Crime No.48 of 2023 was registered on the file
of SIPCOT Police Station, Thoothukudi. Final report was filed and it
was taken on file in S.C.No.25 of 2023 the file of the Special Court of
Trial of Cases under SC & ST (PoA) Act, Thoothukudi.
5. The accused applied for bail. It was denied. Appeal was filed
before this Court in Crl.A.(MD)No.494 of 2023. A learned Judge of this
Court vide order dated 11.10.2023 gave a string of directions. They read
as follows:-
“37. Hence, this Court issues the following directions:
(i) The learned Special Judge, Special Court for trial of
cases under SC/ST(POA)Act, Thoothukudi, is directed to dispose
the trial in S.C.No.62 of 2020, S.C.No.63 of 2020 and S.C.No.25 of
2023 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order as per Section 14(3) of the SC/ST(POA)Act,1989
as amended in the year 2016.
(ii) The learned Special Judge is further directed to conduct
the trial in the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.
__________
Page 4 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:49:53 am )
WP(MD) No. 30029 of 2026
(iii) The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison,
Palayamkottai, shall provide adequate facilities to conduct the
trial in the jail premises.
(iv) The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi is also
directed to cooperate for the same.
(v) The learned Special Judge is directed to make
arrangements to allot any portion of the jail premises to conduct
the trial with “observa” glass partition which is specifically
designed system of reflectivity and light observation levels that
secure the privacy of the observers namely, witnesses.
(vi) The learned Special Judge shall allow maximum number
of two advocates for each accused and they shall be allowed to
participate in the trial after proper security check up as per the jail
norms.
(vii) It is open to the learned Special Judge to allow any of
the witnesses to examine through the mode of video conference as
per the procedure stated in the Madras High Court Video
Conferencing Court Rules, 2020.
(viii) Since the trial Court is already burdened with other
pending cases, this Court would suggest that the trial Court shall
frame the time schedule to conduct and complete the trial on day-
to-day basis. It is also suggested that the learned trial Judge can
have every sitting in the afternoon in the jail premises.”
SLP(Crl.)No.422 of 2024 filed against the said order was dismissed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 07.02.2024.
6. Another set of directions was issued by Hon’ble Mr.Justice
K.K.Ramakrishnan vide order 01.06.2026 in Crl A (MD)Nos.429 of 2025
and 35 & 48 of 2026. The directions read as follows:-
__________
Page 5 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:49:53 am )
WP(MD) No. 30029 of 2026
“52.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition seeking
bail stands dismissed with the following directions:
52.1.The learned trial Judge is directed to make every
endeavour to complete the trial within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
52.2.The prosecution as well as the defence shall extend
their fullest cooperation for expeditious disposal of the case.
52.3.It is open to the witnesses, who are under threat
perception, to approach the competent authorities seeking
appropriate protection, and upon such request, the authorities
concerned shall take necessary steps in accordance with law.
52.4.Liberty is granted to the petitioners/accused to file a
fresh bail application in the event of delay in completion of
trial for reasons not attributable to them.
52.5.With the above observations and directions, the
Criminal appeals are dismissed. Consequently, the connected
appeal also stands dismissed.”
7. Though such directions were given, at least one presiding
officer, to the personal knowledge of one of us (GRSJ), was hesitant to
take up the matters. That is why, the time-line stipulated by Justice
K.K.Ramakrishnan was not honoured. Only after Thiru.P.V.Vasheeth
Kumar was posted as Special Judge that the trials picked up steam. He
had the spine. He almost concluded the trial in the first case. The I.O
alone remains to be examined. In the other case also, the trial has been
substantially completed. It is at this stage, he had been transferred and
posted as Sessions Judge in the newly sanctioned Special Court for Trial
__________
Page 6 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:49:53 am )
WP(MD) No. 30029 of 2026
of Cases under SC and ST (PoA) Act, Tenkasi vide Notification
No.160/2026 dated 18.09.2026 issued by the Madras High Court.
8. The defacto complainant Thiru P.K.Ramkumar, the sole
surviving brother and a potential victim, has come before us assailing the
transfer order.
9.On 27.10.2026, we passed the following order:-
“The case on hand pertains to two highly sensitive
murders that took place in Thoothukudi. Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.K
Ramakrishnan, realizing the gravity of the matter, passed a series
of directions. Even though the learned Judge gave a direction that
the case should be concluded within two months vide order dated
11.10.2023, there was no progress. When one of us (GRSJ) was
the portfolio judge, the then presiding officer was quite reluctant to
pick up the gauntlet. It is only after Thiru.P.V.Vasheeth Kumar
took charge, there was progress. In one case, 56 witnesses had
been examined and IO alone remains to be examined. In the other
case, 57 witnesses have been examined.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner draws our
attention to Section 280 of Cr.P.C corresponding to Section 315 of
BNSS which reads as follows:-
“ 315. Remarks respecting demeanour of
witness.
When a presiding Judge or Magistrate has
recorded the evidence of a witness, he shall also
__________
Page 7 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:49:53 am )
WP(MD) No. 30029 of 2026
record such remarks (if any) as he thinks
material respecting the demeanour of such
witness whilst under examination.”
3. When a particular judge had almost completed the trial
in one case and had substantially completed the other one, it may
not be in the interest of justice to transfer him. In the cases on
hand, mercenaries were involved. Thiru.P.V.Vasheeth Kumar had
shown that he has the spine to deal with the matter. He had
observed the demeanour of the witnesses. The petitioner herein is
the defacto complainant. Both his brothers were murdered. The
petitioner has been given round-the-clock protection. Both the
cases arises under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
4. The petitioner is entitled to demand that his deceased
brothers get posthumous justice. We therefore hold that the
petitioner has the locus standi to insist that the cases are speedily
concluded. We are of the view that by transferring the judge who
had almost completed the trial would definitely stall the
proceedings and cause delay. Hence, we hold that the writ petition
is maintainable. We expect an administrative intervention so that
the matter can be closed as infructuous. List the matter for 'final
hearing' on 03.11.2026. We fix 03.11.2026 as the next hearing
date because the next date of hearing in both the trials is
04.11.2026.”
10. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 03.11.2026, the
Registry informed us as follows :
__________
Page 8 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:49:53 am )
WP(MD) No. 30029 of 2026
“I am to state that the email of Thiru.T.S.Mohamed
Mohideen, Advocate, Counsel for Registry has been forwarded by
the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai under
reference 4th & 5th cited, wherein he has requested the Registry
to provide instructions whether any fresh administrative order
would be passed to enable the transferred Judicial Officer to
handle the cases pending in S.C.No.62 and 63 of 2020 and
S.C.No.25 of 2023 on the file of the Special Court for trial of cases
under SC and ST (PoA) Act, Thoothukudi, as the Writ Petition is
posted for final hearing on 03.11.2026.
I am to further state that the same was placed before the
Hon'ble Chief Justice and His Lordship has minuted as "not
feasible to pass any fresh administrative orders" in this matter.”
11. We reminded ourselves that in CBI v. Amitbhai Anil Chandra
Shah (2012) 10 SCC 545, it was directed that the Administrative
Committee should ensure that the trial should be conducted from
beginning to end by the same officer. In State v. Kalyan Singh (2017) 7
SCC 444, it was directed that there shall be no transfer of the Judge
conducting the trial until the entire trial concludes.
12. No doubt, the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not lay down any
ratio. But, one can infer the broad policy behind such directions. It
would have been in the fitness of things if the Registry had apprised the
Transfer Committee about the special circumstances obtaining in this
__________
Page 9 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:49:53 am )
WP(MD) No. 30029 of 2026
case and indicated that he may be retained in Thoothukudi itself. We are
certain that the Transfer Committee would not have ignored such an
input. When the Transfer Committee had transferred the officer and the
Hon’ble Chief Justice had declined to re-visit the same, we found
ourselves in a quandary. Even as we ruminated over the matter, the old
adage “if the mountain won't come to Mohamed , then Mohamed must go
to the mountain” provided the answer.
13. This Division Bench even while exercising its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is empowered to treat this
petition as one for transfer under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure
Code corresponding to Section 447 of BNSS, 2023. The said statutory
provision enables us to effect transfer of Sessions Case from one division
to another to secure the ends of justice. We are conscious that His
Lordship Mr.Justice D.Krishnakumar in Ganesan v. Inspector of Police
(2018 SCC OnLine Mad 14654) took the view that a case cannot be
transferred to the Court where the Judge, who had recorded the evidence
substantially, had been transferred. The learned Judge relied on a
decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in H.M.Chandragowda v.
State of Karnataka (2001) Crl.LJ 2710) wherein it was held that
demeanour is not a conclusive factor in evidence assessment and that it
__________
Page 10 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:49:53 am )
WP(MD) No. 30029 of 2026
cannot be the sole consideration in determination of expediency for
transfer of a case to the Judge who recorded the evidence, when he is
transferred in the middle of a trial.
14. The cases on hand are rather unique. They are not routine
murder cases. They are highly sensitive. Even the trial is being
conducted in jail premises. That is why, we are of the view that it would
conduce to the ends of justice if the very same judicial officer who had
recorded the evidence disposes the cases. As already mentioned, Thiru
P.V.Vasheeth Kumar had almost completed the trial in one case.
Therefore, in our view, he would be in a better position to give a speedy
disposal to the cases on hand. We do not cast any kind of aspersion on
any other judicial officer when we make the aforesaid observation.
15. We, therefore, transfer S.C Nos.62 of 2020 and 25 of 2023
from the file of Special Court of Trial of Cases under SC & ST (PoA)
Act, Thoothukudi to the file Special Court of Trial of Cases under SC &
ST (PoA) Act, Tenkasi. By virtue of the directions earlier given and
which have also been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,
the trial will continue to take place within the jail premises of Central
Prison, Palayamkottai. We reiterate that Thiru.P.V.Vasheeth Kumar will
__________
Page 11 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:49:53 am )
WP(MD) No. 30029 of 2026
start hearing the cases, preferably on a day-to-day basis from next week
onwards. We clarify that the status of Thiru.P.V.Vasheeth Kumar is not
in any way disturbed at all.
16.This writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(G.R.S.,J.) (M.D.S.,J.)
04-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
ias/SKM
Issue order copy on 11.11.2026.
To
1. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras
High Court Campus, Chennai
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Thoothukudi City Sub Division, Thoothukudi
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Thoothukudi Rural Sub Division, Thoothukudi
__________
Page 12 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:49:53 am )
WP(MD) No. 30029 of 2026
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
AND
M.D.SUMATHI, J.
ias/SKM
WP(MD) No. 30029 of 2026
04-11-2026
__________
Page 13 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:49:53 am )