New Delhi, September 7
In yet another blow to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalitha’s hopes of getting elected to the Assembly before the November 13 deadline, the Supreme Court today transferred her appeals against conviction in three cases to another judge of the Madras High Court and ordered that the hearing afresh on these appeals would not begin before October 1.

A three-judge Bench headed by Mr Justice S.P. Bharucha took strong exception to the way the hearing was conducted before a single judge of the high court, saying “Justice should not only be done but appear to be done”.

When counsel for Ms Jayalalitha, K.K. Venugopal, said the hearing should commence a little earlier as she was racing against the constitutional deadline, the Bench said: “We understand all that. But that does not mean justice will not be done.”

The Bench comprising Justice Bharucha, Justice Brijesh Kumar and Justice Ashok Bhan left the choice of the new judge to the incoming chief justice instead of the present Acting Chief Justice within one week of his appointment.

Today’s order was passed on a petition filed by special prosecutor K.V. Venkatapathy, who had alleged that he was not being supplied documents and that the atmosphere was such that he did not expect a fair hearing on the appeals.

The Bench also asked the special prosecutor to give a list of the deficient documents to the Registrar General of the Madras High Court latest by the evening of October 10.

“The Registry shall comply with Venkatapathy’s request and shall make available to him, in accordance with the rule of the high court, entirety of the records in each of the appeals before the high court,” the Bench said and ordered this should be done before September 18.

Redressing the grievance of the special prosecutor that he was not given time to read the documents running into over 2000-pages, the Bench directed: “The hearing of the appeals shall commence not earlier than October 1, 2001.”

Taking note of the request of Attorney General Soli J. Sorabjee that the transfer of the case from the present Judge R. Balasubramaniam should not be construed as casting of any aspertions on him or the high court, the Bench said: “We make it clear that we are passing the order so that justice is seen to be done.

“We do not intend to make any adverse comments on the judge who was hearing the appeals. The Attorney-General requests to the same effect be recorded,” it said.

When Venugopal said that the real purpose of the transfer petition was different, the court said it was being unfair on his part to make such an allegation.

The bench said: “We all have been lawyers. Lawyers cannot do justice to their brief if they do not get the papers of the other side.”

Ms Jayalalitha had appealed against her convictions in two Tansi land scam cases and a case pertaining to Pleasant Stay Hotel.

Sorabjee, appearing for Venkatapathy, brought to court’s notice the reported statement of the judge at the beginning of the hearing that he would hear the appeals on day-to-day basis and dictate the judgement in the open court on the completion of the arguments.

On the judge’s comment to dictate judgement in the open court, Venugopal said there was nothing wrong in that as many judges had done so.

Justice Bharucha said: “We all have done that but we never said at the commencement of the hearing that we would do so. If a judge makes such a statement before knowing the complexities of the matter, we have no hesitation to allow what has been prayed for by the petitioner.”

The direction to transfer the case to another judge, to start hearing afresh on the appeals and not before October 1, makes it difficult for Jayalalitha to get elected to the Assembly before November 13.

Even if she gets an acquittal from the high court in the three cases pertaining Tansi land scam and Pleasant Stay Hotel cases, she then has to inform the Election Commission about the acquittal and look for a constituency from where to hold bye-election would take a minimum of 15 days.