Writ petitions dismissed: Jaya loses legal battle

CHENNAI, Nov 3 (PTI) — AIADMK supremo Jayalalitha lost a major legal battle today when the Madras High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging the appointment of three special judges to try corruption cases against her and some ministers of her erstwhile regime.

There was no mala fide on the part of the Tamil Nadu Government in issuing the notification on April 30, 1997, appointing the judges to try corruption cases, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M S Liberhan and Justice E Padmanabhan held.

The court dismissed the entire batch of writ petitions from Jayalalitha, her former Cabinet colleagues and others, challenging the appointment of judges to try corruption offences allegedly committed between 1991 and 1996 when she was the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister.

The court, however, stayed the execution of its order for eight days to enable the petitioners to appeal against the verdict in the Supreme Court.

Chief Minister M Karunanidhi described the verdict as "a victory for the people".

In all, 46 cases have been filed so far against Jayalalitha, her close friend Sasikala Natarajan, her disowned son V N Sudhakaran, some ministers of her former regime and some IAS officers.

This is the second Bench which heard elaborate arguments as an earlier Bench could not deliver the verdict.

In its 678-page judgement, the Bench said the petitioners’ contention that there was an attempt to "politically annihilate" them was not only devoid of merits but was an "attempt to justify their past omissions and to wriggle out of the situation in which they have been placed".

Having held public office and having been charged with offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), the petitioners, who were entrusted with public funds, have to face trial and come out from their cases only after establishing their innocence, the Bench said.

As there were "prima facie" cases against them, the petitioners "have to face criminal prosecution and get themselves cleared", it said.

The complaint that this was only due to political rivalry or aimed at political annihilation deserved rejection, the court said.

Rejecting another principal argument of the petitioners that what had been constituted were "regime courts" (pertaining only to the AIADMK regime), the Bench noted that there had been no cases against former ministers or highly placed politicians prior to June. 1991.

On the point that the cases had been filed only to create "adverse publicity" against them, it said as they were all political and public dignitaries, there was obviously a wide media coverage of their cases.

The Bench upheld the constitutional validity of Section 3 of the PCA which enables appointment of a special judge for any case or group of cases.

Chief Justice Liberhan who delivered a separate and concurring judgement on some legal points, said he was unable to comprehend how conduct of trial by special judges appointed under this provision for a case or group of cases could be termed "super track trial" by the petitioners.

The special judges, too, were governed by the same statutory provisions which enjoined a mandatory duty on them that in cases of corruption, trial was to be held on a day-to-day basis.

"If the argument (of a ‘regime trial’) is countenanced, all enactments and trials other than ordinary ones will be rendered nugatory or will have to be obliterated, and it will result in a blanket umbrella, protecting (them) from the trial, which cannot be accepted," the Chief Justice said.

On the contention that the appointments were not valid as the judges were not appointed by the high court, the Bench clarified that the full court (all high court judges in their administrative capacity) had approved not only the constitution of three courts but also the posting of three judges. Therefore, it had to be held that it was the high court’s decision, and not one of the judges or the CJ alone.