Jaya’s comment amounts to Contempt of Court

When newspersons asked for her reaction to the CBI court in New Delhi granting bail to former Union Minister A.Raja in the 2G spectrum case, Jayalalitha has said, “definitely the case looks as though it is getting diluted.”

As a responsible Chief Minister, having been sworn-in by the constitution to uphold the letter and spirit of the constitution, she should have politely refused to comment on the wisdom and prerogative of the judiciary and comment. Instead her haughty comment, which she seemed to have believed was directed towards the UPA government at the Centre and the prosecuting agency CBI, was in fact a commentary on not only the CBI court but also on the Supreme Court of India.

For, the investigating and prosecuting agency, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), is carrying out investigation directly under the monitoring of the Supreme Court and periodically keeps filing reports on the progress in investigation to the court, under the directive of the apex court. Moreover, all the other accused in the case were already granted bails by the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court and Raja was the last of them to be granted bail by the trial court. Hence Jayalalitha’s comment is nothing but tantamount to contempt of court(s).

Raja himself and the DMK itself had been consistently maintaining that he would face the care and prove his innocence. The DMK did not, like Jayalalitha, delay the trial by hook or by crook or attempted to wriggle him out by manipulation.

But did Jayalalitha have honesty and courage to squarely face corruption cases against her and come out clean? Did she not lie in the court disowning her own signature on the documents in the purchase of TANSI land only to be disproved by forensic test. Did she not surrender back the ill-gotten TANSI property and let free by the apex court ‘to atone her conscience after passing strictures?

And her attempts to drag the Disproportionate Assets case were repeatedly pulled up by the courts. When she came back to power in 2001 she tried to dilute the case by misusing power, necessitating the Supreme Court to transfer the case to a special court to Bangalore and also appointing a Special Public Prosecutor.

Once again, soon after assuming power for the third time in Tamil Nadu, one of the very first action taken by Jayalalitha, was to make a last ditch effort to save her skin – imminent conviction – in the Disproportionate Assets case tried in the Special Court in Bangalore. On her directive, the Chief Secretary conducted an extraordinary review meeting relating to cases in the Special Investigation Cell, DVAC and decided to undertake further investigation in the case against Jayalalitha, with the unstated objective of foiling the case.

Accordingly, the DVAC, Chennai, wrote directly to the judge of the Special Court trying the disproportionate assets case against Jayalalitha stating that it is continuing with the investigation.

The letter, addressed to the judge of the Special Court and the 36th Additional City Civil and Sessions Court, was delivered directly to the court officer by an inspector of the DVAC on June14. The Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) was not informed of it.

The Special Court asked the DVAC to explain in writing why it chose to write to the court directly while keeping the SPP in the dark. “What was the need to give this letter bypassing the Prosecutor? On what provision of the law have you written this letter directly to the court? Normally, whatever the investigating agency has to submit before the trial court has to be done through the prosecutor,” Judge B.M. Mallikarjunaiah told DVAC Inspector A. Immanuel Gnan Sekhar, who delivered the letter to the court.

At this juncture, SPP B.V. Acharya pointed out that the Supreme Court, while transferring the trial to Bangalore from Chennai, had condemned a similar type of conduct. He also urged the court to ask the DVAC why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against it.

As the judge was passing an order to summon the Deputy Superintendent of Police of the DVAC who had written the letter, it was pointed out to him that the police officer, G. Sambandam, was present in the court.

As Sambandam informed the court that he had been assisting the investigating officer for a long time and was attending the court proceedings, the Judge asked him to explain under what provisions of the law the letter had been directly sent to the court.

Acharya submitted that the court should proceed with recording the statement of the accused persons as contemplated in Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as the letter was another method intended to delay the trial. He argued that the court should not mix the issue of the letter with the main case.

Sambandam informed the court that a similar action was taken in another case in Chennai and that the instant letter was written under “instructions.” He sought time to submit his explanation in writing.

Meanwhile, counsel for the accused sought adjournment of the proceedings till the hearing on a petition filed by one of the accused (Sasikala Natarajan) before the Karnataka High Court challenging the special court's order refusing to recall a witness. Counsel stated that the hearing was adjourned to June 21 on the request of the lawyer appearing for the DVAC.

However, Acharya opposed the adjournment and submitted that the High Court had refused to stay the proceedings. The DVAC had now appointed a new lawyer to represent it before the High Court.

While rejecting the plea for adjourning the proceedings, the Special Court directed the DVAC to make available copies of the letter to the SPP and the accused. It adjourned the proceedings to June 18.

The application filed by the DVAC, intimating the court that it is investigating the case, says the Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary, who also holds charge as Vigilance Commissioner and Commissioner for Administrative Reforms, conducted a review meeting on June 3 in Chennai relating to the cases pending in the Special Investigation Cell, DVAC.

“The Chief Secretary has pointed out certain patent lapses [that have] occurred in the Special Case No. 208/2004 [disproportionate assets case against Ms. Jayalalitha and others] during the investigation and directed to rectify the lapse and discrepancies pointed out by his letter dated June 8, 2011,” the application points out.

Deputy Superintendent of Police G. Sambandam, investigating officer, also states in his application that he was submitting these facts to the Special Court by way of intimation as per the guideline of the Supreme Court, in its verdicts, that permits such further investigation without prior permission of the court.

On September 14, in a further setback to Jayalalitha, the Karnataka high court directed the DVAC, Chennai, not to undertake further investigation in the Rs 66-crore disproportionate assets case involving her.

Allowing a criminal petition filed by senior DMK General Secretary Prof. K Anbazhagan, Justice V Jagannathan directed the special court in Bangalore to adhere to the Supreme Court order of 2003 which while transferring the trial from Tamil Nadu said the special court should hold it on day-to-day basis.

"The SC has said that under the guise of further inquiry, no re-investigation or fresh investigation can be undertaken. What has been done cannot be undone," the court said. "The letter written directly to the special court on June 15, 2011 says that the Investigating Officer wants to take up further investigation from where it stopped in an effort to undo the past. Further investigation sought to be undertaken when the matter has reached the stage of recording the statement of the accused and SC had already fixed the date of appearance.

An attempt is being made to subvert the course of justice and needing this court to invoke its inherent powers available under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code as it is an extraordinary situation,'' the judge said.

Prof. Anbazhagan sought for conducting the trial on a day-to-day basis as per the SC's directive and also that DVAC should be directed to intimate each and every move through the Special Public Prosecutor (B V Acharya ) only.

After Jayalalitha came back to power in May, DVAC had appointed another counsel (M T Naniah) to plead its case before high court. But that move was negated by the high court.

Jayalalitha suffered yet another setback on Jan.31, 2012 with the Supreme Court rejecting the Tamil Nadu government's appeal against the Karnataka High Court order refusing to entertain its plea for a further probe in the disproportionate assets case against her and four others pending before a special court in Bangalore.

A Bench of Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Justice Dipak Misra, dismissing two appeals filed by DVAC Superintendent of Police, said, “We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.”

The Bench asked the special court to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible, uninfluenced by the observations made by the High Court in the impugned order.

Special leave petitions were filed by the State against the orders of the Karnataka High Court quashing the decision of the DVAC to order a further probe in the wealth case.

The High Court quashed the DVAC's communication for further probe dated June 15, 2011 on a petition filed by DMK General Secretary Prof. K. Anbazhagan challenging the communication.

Senior counsel Ashok Desai, appearing for the State said, “We wanted to conduct further investigation since certain defects and infirmities were noticed.” He cited various decisions and said the right of the Investigating Officer for further probe could not be interfered with.

Justice Dipak Misra told counsel, “You [police] have a right for further probe, but at what stage is the question. If it is an attempt to frustrate the trial, the whole trial will become a mockery.”

Senior counsel Rakesh Dwivedi, who also appeared for the State, justified further probe.

Special Public Prosecutor and Karnataka Advocate General B.V. Acharya traced the genesis of the case and explained to the court how it was transferred from Chennai to Bangalore in 2004.

He said despite his best efforts the trial could not be concluded for the last eight years as application after application was being filed in the special court and the High Court and every attempt was being made to delay the process. He said in 2001 a similar attempt was made to order further investigation in the London hotel case and as a result the whole case was weakened.

The High Court pointed out this fact and had held that the intention to order further probe was not bona fide and had quashed the communication. He said the impugned order should not be interfered with.

Senior counsel T.R. Andhyarunjina, appearing for Prof. Anbazhagan, pointed out that in the meeting held on June 3, 2011 the decision for further probe was taken.

He said between May 16, 2011 and June 3, 2011 various officers were replaced and a new set of officers posted, and in the guise of reviewing various cases a decision was taken for further probe in this case.

He said in this case the chargesheet was filed in June 1997 and since then various attempts were being made by Jayalalitha to frustrate and delay the trial by all means. The intention of the government was not bona fide and if only Prof. Anbazhagan had not challenged the decision, the whole trial would have been vitiated, counsel said and sought dismissal of the appeals.

Such being her track record, she should demonstrate humility and avoid unnecessarily making thoughtless comments on judicial process in the cases of others!