Is Tamil Nadu Finance Minister Marie Wilson the King of England to avoid court appearance, asks Madras High Court

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

Justice V. Lakshminarayanan of the Madras High Court on Friday (August 28, 2026) asked whether Tamil Nadu Finance Minister N. Marie Wilson was the King of England for him not to appear before a Puducherry Judicial Magistrate in connection with an assault case pending against him.

The judge posed the query during the hearing of a petition filed by the Minister to quash the charge sheet that had been filed against him by the Lawspet police in Puducherry in the assault case registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by his sister-in-law, Careline Claude.

When the petitioner’s counsel stated that the police appeared to have filed an additional charge sheet against the petitioner and his father but a copy of it had not been served on them, the judge retorted that the accused would be served with copies only when they attend the court proceedings.

“You are not going to the court. How will they give you a copy? When Narasimha Rao was the Prime Minister of the country, he appeared before a court. You are just a Minister. Let us not give an impression that a Minister is above the law,” the judge told the counsel.

Initially, when the quash petition was listed for admission on July 9, 2026, Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, who was holding the MP/MLA portfolio at the point of time, had referred the matter for mediation since it was represented that the complainant and the accused were close relatives.

After a few rounds of mediation sittings, Ms. Claude’s counsel, Mohammed Rafi, on August 20, 2026, informed the court that his client was not interested in proceeding further with the mediation and that she wanted to walk out of it. However, the Minister’s counsel objected to her decision.

He wondered how the complainant could walk out of the mediation process midway after having agreed to it during the initial hearing of the quash plea. However, Justice Lakshminarayanan replied that the court could not force an unwilling party to undergo the process of mediation.

The judge, thereafter, decided to hear the quash petition on merits and was told that the petitioner would have to withdraw the present petition and file a fresh petition challenging the additional charge sheet. He permitted the petitioner to withdraw the plea after the counsel assured the court that the petitioner would appear before the magistrate.

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.