PM asks Jaya for evidence

NEW DELHI, Aug 17 (PTI) — The Prime Minister, Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee, tonight asked AIADMK chief J. Jayalalitha to furnish all evidence regarding her allegations of "financial misconduct" by persons very close to him for the transfer of Enforcement Directorate chief M.K. Bezbaruah.

In a letter on Mr Vajpayee’s behalf to Ms Jayalalitha, Prime Minister’s Principal Secretary Brajesh Mishra said if the news reports on the allegations attributed to her "accurately represent the views of a senior alliance partner, then they merit immediate attention", according to official sources.

"I am directed by the Prime Minister to request you to please let me have at your early convenience all evidence in respect of the allegations", Mr Mishra said in his four-para letter.

He said: "I am sure you will agree that as reports have appeared in the Press about these allegations, it is only proper that this is also released to the Press".

The letter gives a new twist to the on-going war of attrition between the AIADMK chief and the BJP-led government.

The Prime Minister’s view that her allegations merit immediate attention comes close on the heels of demands from various opposition parties, including the Congress, for a high-level probe into the charges.

Mr Mishra’s letter said: "I am directed by the Prime Minister to draw your kind attention to news reports containing allegations of financial misconduct by persons very close to the Prime Minister. The news reports attribute these allegations to you".

It further said: "It is the Prime Minister’s view that if these news reports accurately represent the views of a senior alliance partner, then they merit immediate attention".

In her letter dated August 16, Ms Jayalalitha had requested Mr Vajpayee to reinstate M.K. Bezbaruah as the Enforcement Directorate chief and issue orders for his re-appointment immediately.

Her letter, however, did not mention about the charge that she had made in her press statement yesterday at Chennai that "hefty bribes" were paid to persons close to Prime Minister for the transfer of Mr Bezbaruah.

AIADMK leader said she had been unfairly accused of having demanded the transfer of Mr Bezbaruah in particular because he was vigorously pursuing several FERA cases filed against her.

"Nothing could be farther from the truth. There are no FERA cases against me. Though there are FERA cases against some of my associates, they are facing the cases legally in courts of law," she said.

Though she was in no way involved in these transfers, she said Javed Choudhary, who had replaced N.K. Singh as Revenue Secretary, "had harassed me and hounded several of my associates vindictively in the past."

Hence, as far as I am concerned, it does not matter whether N.K. Singh or Javed Choudhary is the Revenue Secretary. Therefore, I have no objection to any of these officers being reinstated in their earlier posts, Ms Jayalalitha said.

Supreme Court approves Cauvery plan

NEW DELHI, Aug 17 (PTI) — The six-year legal battle on the implementation of Cauvery Water Tribunal’s interim award came to a close today with the Supreme Court disposing of a Tamil Nadu petition following the agreement between the four riparian states recently.

A Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice M.M. Punchhi disposed of the suit for the implementation of the interim award without passing any order as Tamil Nadu’s counsel K. Parasaran said he had no objection if it was disposed of in view of the scheme notified by Centre on August 11.

The other Judges on the Bench were Mr Justice S.C. Agarwal, Mr Justice A.S. Anand, Mr Justice S.P. Bharucha and Mr Justice A.P. Misra.

Under the scheme, a Cauvery River Authority headed by the Prime Minister with Chief Ministers of riparian states as its members, had been created for the implementation of the June, 1991 interim award and all subsequent orders of the tribunal.

The Bench in its disposal order also noted that the states of Karnataka, Kerala and Pondicherry and Attorney General Soli J. Sorabjee had no objection to Mr Parasaran’s suggestion.

Tamil Nadu had filed the suit in 1992 seeking the implementation of the interim award by which Karnataka was directed to release 205 TMC ft of water annually to Tamil Nadu.

Beginning arguments on the issue, counsel for Karnataka F.S. Nariman said the Constitution Bench hearing the Cauvery dispute had on April 3 last year framed two questions.

The questions were whether in view of the Section VI of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, the Centre was obliged to enforce tribunal’s decision and whether the Supreme Court was precluded from making any direction to Centre in this regard.

Mr Nariman said both these questions had become infructuous in view of the scheme framed by the government in consultation with the Cauvery basin states.

The counsel said in the preamble of the scheme, it was stated that an authority under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister was being formed for the implementation of the June 25, 1991, interim award and all other decisions of the Cauvery tribunal.

Judges' issue referred to larger Bench

NEW DELHI, Aug 17 (PTI) — A two-judge Supreme Court Bench today referred petitions seeking appointment of high court judges to a larger Bench though a Constitution Bench is already hearing a presidential reference raising vital questions on the prevailing procedure on such appointments.

The Bench comprising Mr Justice S. Saghir Ahmed and Justice K.T. Thomas, hearing petitions seeking filling of a large number of vacancies of judges in various high courts, said "In view of the important questions involved in the petitions let these be listed before a three-judge Bench."

While the petitions by Mohan Lal Gupta and R.K. Singh seek appointment of judges to high courts, including the Allahabad, Punjab and Haryana High Courts, a petition by the Committee on Judicial Accountability (COJA) questioned the appointment of judges without the Chief Justice of India (CJI) following the norms and procedures laid down by the apex court earlier.

The reference to a larger Bench was made by the court even as Attorney-General Soli J. Sorabjee and counsel for other petitioners opposed such a move.

Sorabjee said, in all fairness, it would be appropriate if the petitions were transferred to the Constitution Bench hearing the presidential reference.

Mr Justice Ahmed said against a sanctioned strength of 70 judges at the Allahabad High Court, as many as 34 posts were lying vacant and observed that nobody was bothered about the high courts and the resultant plight of the litigants, their tears and the money they spent on the cases.

"When 50 per cent of the vacancies in a high court was not filled, you call it a high court," Mr Justice Ahmed said.

Sorabjee said "what could the government do when the President has questioned the sanctity of the consultation process (between the government and the Chief Justice of India)."

He, however, said in his capacity as the First Law Officer of the government he had written to the Centre to clear all those appointments to high courts on which there was no controversy.

Sorabjee said the government was keen on expediting hearings before the nine-judge Bench and in an application had sought direction to those parties to whom notices were issued to file written submissions before September 15, the next date of hearing on the presidential reference.

The nine-judge Bench had issued notices to Advocates General of all states and union territories and Bar Council of India on the reference.

The court had also issued notice to the Association of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, on whose petition the Supreme Court had laid down guidelines on the appointment of judges in 1993.