The Supreme Court has requested a report from the Madras High Court following a petition from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging an order by retired High Court Judge Mathivanan. The CBI informed the Supreme Court that the detailed reasoning for the order was uploaded only after the judge retired.

The CBI further stated that the Chief Justice of the High Court has ordered a fresh hearing of nine cases previously heard by Justice Mathivanan, including one involving a corruption case against an IRS officer. 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 issued by Justice Mathivanan on May 15, 2017.

The court was informed that the petitioner had applied for a certified copy after the order was issued but was told by the Registry that the detailed order was not received from the judge’s office. The petition notes that a certified copy of the order was provided to the petitioner on July 26, 2017, but the detailed reasons were not available until after the judge retired.

The Supreme Court has now directed the Registrar General of Madras High Court to provide the following information by the end of September:
1. The date on which the judgment was received by the Registry from the judge’s office.
2. The date when the judgment and order were uploaded.
3. Whether there was any administrative direction from the Chief Justice for a de novo hearing of the nine cases heard by the judge and if the current petition’s case is included.

This is not the first time Justice Mathivanan has come under scrutiny. The Supreme Court had previously set aside his ruling in another matter, where the detailed portion was uploaded five months post-retirement. In February, the Supreme Court had to overturn a Madras High Court verdict by Justice Mathivanan after discovering that he had retained case files for five months after his retirement, with the reasoned order published only afterward.

A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan noted, “Retaining the file of a case for five months after demitting the office is an act of gross impropriety by the learned judge. We cannot condone this action.” These remarks were made while allowing an appeal by the CBI against orders by Justice Mathivanan, who had quashed a chargesheet against businessman Naresh Prasad Agarwal in a Rs 113 crore cheating case and discharged his son N. Ganesh Agarwal from the same case.