Madras High Court omits names of TVK leaders Vijay, ‘Bussy’ Anand from writ petition on appointment of law officers

The Madras High Court, on Friday (July 17, 2026), ordered omission of ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) president C. Joseph Vijay (Chief Minister), general secretary N. Anand alias ‘Bussy’ Anand (Minister) and Villupuram district secretary N. Mohanraj from a writ petition filed by party lawyer M. Gnanasoundari to consider her applications too while appointing law officers for the district courts.

Justice Mohammed Shaffiq passed the order after the petitioner’s counsel agreed to give up the three private respondents and retain only the Law Secretary and Villupuram Collector. The High Court Registry had listed the case for deciding its maintainability and the judge said, the three private respondents appeared to have been included only to “hit the headlines.”

The judge disposed of the writ petition after recording Advocate General Vijay Narayan’s submission that the writ petitioner’s applications for the posts of Special Public Prosecutor at Villupuram Mahila Court and Additional Public Prosecutor at Villupuram Principal Sub Court would also be considered when the government officials make tenure-based appointments for those posts.

The A-G said, numerous applications had been received for the law officers’ vacancies across the State and hence the government was unable to make regular appointments before the tenure of the previous law officers ended on June 30. Since the State could not go unrepresented before the courts in the meantime, the government had chosen to make temporary appointments for a maximum period of six months.

On the other hand, the petitioner’s counsel contended there was no explanation as to why his client’s name was not considered for the temporary appointments and claimed another advocate, facing a goat theft case, had been appointed temporarily. The judge replied such “aberrations” at the lower level could not be used to paint the entire selection process as tainted.

If the petitioner was in possession of materials to prove corruption in the selection process, then she could always lodge a police complaint and set the criminal law in motion. Instead, she could not raise such issues by traversing beyond the scope of the present writ petition in which the prayer was only to consider her applications too for the posts of law officers, the judge said.

Further, referring to the petitioner’s averments in her affidavit that even Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) advocates had been selected to various posts of law officers on temporary basis, the judge said, such a submission made by the petitioner, belonging to the ruling TVK party, would only show the selection process had been “fair and unbiased.”