ASSEMBLY POLL '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ELECTIONS '98
ARCHIVES

State, Centre acted wrongly in corruption cases: Jaya's counsel

In a surprise move, All India Anna DMK chief J Jayalalitha today challenged the central notification transferring 46 corruption cases against her and others to three special courts for trial -- of course by implication.

Senior counsel P P Rao, appearing for her, submitted before the Supreme Court that both the state and the central notifications relating to the trial of corruption cases against her and others were bad in law, as they were issued without proper consultation with the full court of the Madras high court.

The counsel made the submission during resumed hearing on a batch of special leave petitions by Jayalalitha and others against a Madras high court judgment upholding the validity of the April 30 1997 notification issued by the state government, transferring the corruption cases against her and others for trial by three special judges.

At this point, when attorney general Soli J Sorabjee wanted a clarification as to whether the counsel was also challenging the central notification, Rao replied that he was not challenging the central notification, but if consultation was to be taken into account, both the notifications would not conform to the procedures laid down in the Prevention of Corruption Act for the purpose.

Rao said consultation with the chief justice of the high court or a committee of judges of the high court did not constitute proper consultation, as the view of the high court could only be expressed by the full court.

In the present case, the Karunanidhi government consulted only the chief justice before issuing the notification. Similarly, there was no consultation by the Centre before issuing the February 5 notification transferring these cases to the sessions courts, the counsel added.

Earlier, senior counsel K K Venugopal, while concluding his submissions in the case on behalf of Jayalalitha, contended that the state government had no power under Section 3 (1) of the PCA to divest an area special judge of cases pending before him and entrust the same to other special judges.

So far, the central notification had not been questioned by any of the counsels appearing for Jayalalitha. In a way, the central notification gives a sort of respite to Jayalalitha.

The arguments will continue tomorrow.

UNI

Tell us what you think of this report