The Hindu : Supreme Court turns down Jayalalithaa's plea

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Feb 18, 2004

Front Page

Front Page

Supreme Court turns down Jayalalithaa's plea

By J. Venkatesan

NEW DELHI, FEB. 17. The Supreme Court today rejected an application of the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, Jayalalithaa, seeking transfer of the "disproportionate assets cases" against her and four others from a Bangalore court to a court in any other State, preferably in Andhra Pradesh.

A Bench consisting of Justice S.N. Variava and Justice H.K. Sema held that "no case is made out for modification of our order [dated November 18, 2003, shifting the two cases from a Chennai special court to a Bangalore court]. The petitions are dismissed being devoid of merits."

"To say the least, the apprehensions [of Ms. Jayalalithaa] with regard to the Cauvery water dispute and forest brigand Veerappan have got nothing to do with the judicial function of the court. At the same time, the security and safety of the applicant and witnesses are well safeguarded as highlighted in the counter affidavit of Karnataka," the Bench said.

Acting on a petition from the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) general secretary, K. Anbazhagan, the apex court had in November last ordered shifting of the cases — the Rs. 66-crore disproportionate assets case and the London hotels case — involving Ms. Jayalalithaa, Ms. Sasikalaa, Ms. Ilavarasi, V.N. Sudhakaran and T.T.V. Dinakaran to a court in Bangalore.

Seeking to modify the order, Ms. Jayalalithaa had contended that in view of the surcharged atmosphere and large scale agitation by a section of the people of Karnataka targeting her as well as attacks on Tamil speaking people caused by the highly sensitive Cauvery water dispute, she would not get a free and fair trial in that State.

Rejecting this submission, the Bench pointed out that Karnataka, in its affidavit, had stated that the "false and self-serving" statements had been made by Ms. Jayalalithaa to bolster her plea for relief. Also, there was no reason to apprehend that Karnataka would not take adequate steps for ensuring a fair and free trial as directed by the apex court.

The Bench also noted the submission made by the State Advocate-General, A.N. Jayaram, that Karnataka "has no interest in the outcome of the trial" and "looks upon it only as a constitutional duty to be discharged to effectuate the order of the apex court." Further, the Advocate-General had submitted that the State had already constituted the special court on the City Civil Court campus in Bangalore and a special judge had been appointed.

In the light of these submissions, the Bench said "we are not persuaded to re-appreciate the circumstances leading to the filing of the transfer petitions and order of this court transferring the same to Karnataka."

The Bench noted that "after hearing both the sides and threadbare discussion, this court was of the view that it is expedient for the ends of justice [that] the cases be transferred from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka for trial in accordance with law."

Referring to her plea for shifting the case to Pondicherry, the Bench said that under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the apex court could order transfer of a case from the jurisdiction of one High Court to another, and in respect of Pondicherry, it was within the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court. Therefore, if her submission was accepted it would amount to transfer of a case from the Madras High Court to the same jurisdiction of the High Court and that situation was not contemplated under Section 406 Cr.P.C.

The Judges said "we must unequivocally say that in a democratic country like ours, governed by the Rule of Law, the efficient and independent judiciary manned the subordinate courts, where justice is administered impartially, fearless of public glamour, regardless of public responses and indifferent to private, political or partisan influences."

"We have no least doubt in our mind that the judge who has been assigned the job will do well in discharging his divine duty in accordance with law, keeping in mind the above principles," the Bench observed and dismissed the application.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Front Page

News Update

Stories in this Section

India, Pakistan agree on timeframe for talks

Supreme Court turns down Jayalalithaa's plea

No Indian securitymen will go with cricket team, says Advani

8 Pakistanis repatriated

Phoolan killer escapes from Tihar jail