The Hindu : National : Balakrishna Pillai challenges his sentence in Idamalayar dam case

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Mar 02, 2011
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

National

National

Balakrishna Pillai challenges his sentence in Idamalayar dam case

J. Venkatesan

He alleges that there are several errors of law, jurisdiction and facts in the February 10 judgment

‘The petitioner has a right to know under what provision of law he is sentenced'
Mr. Pillai has sought a direction that he be produced in the court and released forthwith

New Delhi: In an unusual step, former Kerala Minister R. Balakrishna Pillai has questioned through a writ petition, a judgment of the Supreme Court on February 10 sentencing him to undergo one year imprisonment in the Idamalayar dam case.

In the petition filed through his counsel E.M.S. Anam, he has also challenged the Supreme Court Rules 1966 which provided for hearing a review petition by the judges in the chamber instead of in the court.

‘Deliberate step'

Mr. Pillai said the non-production of entire evidence had prejudiced the accused and the suppression of the documents by the State was deliberate. The appeal by V.S. Achuthanandan (the present Kerala Chief Minister, who was then leader of the opposition in the Assembly) was for political gain, as [is] evident from the public speeches and statements made by the appellant.

He alleged that there were several errors of law, jurisdiction and facts in the February 10 judgment which infringed the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 21 (right to life and liberty). There was no statement in the judgment “which does not record a finding of guilty.” He maintained that his personal liberty had been deprived violating the procedure established by law.

“The petitioner has a right to know under which Act and under what provision of law he is sentenced” as these mandatory requirements were lacking in the judgment. He said, “The core question which had to be decided by the court was whether the Chief Minister of a State was entitled to continue an appeal preferred by him when he was the leader of the opposition and to take a stand contrary to the stand taken by the State government, which was implicit of the fact that no appeal had been filed by the State.”

Mr. Pillai asked, “Would he [Mr.Achuthanandan] be having the status of a person interested? Was his interest in the administration of criminal justice or was his interest in putting down a political opponent and thus seeking to win elections based on his prosecuting the case in the Supreme Court?”

Mr. Pillai, while seeking a declaration that his confinement in prison was illegal and not in accordance with law, has sought a direction that he be produced in the court and released forthwith. An opportunity for hearing of the review petition was also sought.

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