Monday 25 November 2013

Is Jaya secular, Com. Yechury?

CPM  politburo member and parliamentary party leader Com. Sitaram Yechury has expressed hope that Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and ADMK chief Jayalalitha would send a representative to the anti-communal convention slated in Delhi on October 30.
“We want to bring together all the secular forces in the country for the anti- communal convention in order to safeguard the foundations of the Indian republic. We have invited the chief ministers of Tamil Nadu, Bihar and Odisha. Jayalalitha may not be able to travel but she will send someone. Most probably she may send MPs like Thambi Durai,” Yechury said. He said the secular parties have been preparing to come together to secure India from communal forces.
Com. Yechury as well as his General Secretary Prakash Karat, both educated in Chennai, are well aware of the political and social history of Tamil Nadu. Undoubtedly both are well read intellectuals. Precisely that makes us wonder as to how they came to the conclusion that Jayalalitha is secular and secure India from communal forces.
Com. Yechury was in Chennai on October 20 for participating in the centenary celebrations of Indian born Pakistani Urdu writer Saadat Hasan, Manto organised by the CPM-led Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers and Artistes Association in Chennai.
Ironically, it was in yet another Anti-communal politics conference organised by the same Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers and Artistes’ Association in Madurai that former Chairman of Tuticorin Port Trust and Sethusamudram Ship Canal Project gave a special lecture with slide shows on the project debunking the propaganda of Hindu communal forces of Ramar bridge to oppose the project.
It is Jayalalitha, suddenly found out to be ‘secular to save India from communal forces’ by these respected comrades, who is spearheading the reactionary and blatantly communal concept of ‘Ramar Sethu’ to stall this valuable project and has moved the Supreme Court to scrap the project.
Comrades Yechury and Karat may be reminded that on September 1 a book “Dr. Manmohan Singh – A Decade of Decay”, is a compilation of select articles authored by M R Venkatesh, was launched in Chennai by ‘senior’ BJP leader Subramanian Swamy. Inaugural speech was given by Nambi Narayan – Swadeshi Jagran Manch, an outfit of Sangh Parivar. Special addresses were given by Dr. Swamy and S. Gurumurthy, RSS ideologue. Obviously, it was a release from the Saffron brigade. The aim of book was to launch a tirade on the 10-year rule of the Congress party at the Centre. But quite unconnectedly a chapter under the heading “Why Jayalalitha will lead our national discourse” is inserted in the collection. It deals with Jayalalitha’s stringent protest against the Prevention of  Communal and Targeted Violence Bill introduced by the UPA government in 2011 and stoutly opposed by forces on the expected line, the BJP and Hindu communal forces- the only non-Sangh parivar leader to oppose it was Jayalalitha! That is the reason for this author to select her to lead the ‘national discourse’. In this article M.R.Venkatesh goes on to proclaim her as future Prime Minister and dares to say,
“The Americans (so do several other countries) seem to recognise this fact and prepare for life after Dr Singh’s exit from office. The visit of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Chennai a fortnight back seems to suggest the growing realisation of the international community that sooner than later they have to necessarily deal with Jaya at the national and international level”
Incidentally, on January 15 last year (2012), the daily ‘The New Indian Express’ reported,
“BharatiyaJanata Party (BJP) veteran Lal Krishna Advani has described Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalitha-led All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (ADMK) as a ‘natural ally’ of his political outfit.
Speaking on the occasion of the 42nd anniversary celebrations of Tamil weekly ‘Thuglaq’ in Chennai on Saturday January 14, 2012), Advani hailed Jayalalitha for lending unconditional support to the BJP in Parliament.
“When I think in terms of the kind of political parties that associate and cooperate with us, we happen to be the principal opposition against the present government and among the parties that have been continuously cooperating with us, helping us in all respects, it is not nearly- AIADMK may not be a part of the NDA but the kind of cooperation and assistance we have received from the party under the leadership of Jayalalithaji has been total,” said Advani.
“There has been no reservation of any kind. Jayalalithaji, AIADMK, have been functioning as natural allies of my party,” he added”.
These are the latest instances to show how rabidly Jayalalitha is communal of appeal to the Saffron forces, leave alone that she defended constructing Ram temple at the disputed site in Ayodya at the National Development Council meeting in early 1990s and sent volunteers for Kar Seva at Aydohya by Hindutva forces and opposed reservation for Muslims when it was introduced in Andhra Pradesh.
By any yardstick Jayalalitha cannot even be imagined to be secular and even her own party functionaries will laugh at that idea, because they know their ‘Amma’ well.
If anti-Congress stand on issues is the only criterion for the CPM leaders to invite ADMK to join secular, democratic, political alternative sans Congress and BJP, Mamata Banerjee-led Trinamool Congress will be a much more dependable ally. Will the CPM and other Left parties invite that party also? 
No. They have stated that political situation at the national and State levels have been taken into account.
Significantly, a report under the headline “Left’s overtures show Jayalalitha is a key figure in Delhi” in ‘The Hindu’ on October 21 dealing with Yechury’s visit to Chennai and the convention against communalism in New Delhi ends with a paragraph stating,
“But, for the Left this time, regional considerations will take precedence over national initiatives.
Though the CPI(M) leaders and Sharad Yadav of Janata Dal (United) are keen on inviting Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy, the CPI state unit in Andhra Pradesh is averse to the idea, as Mr. Reddy opposes Telangana. It has also been decided not to invite Telugu Desam Party leader Chandrababu Naidu.
A senior CPI (M) leader says broad agreements and pre-poll links such as the one with the ADMK may quickly change after the elections. “There may well be a complete shifting of sands after the Lok Sabha polls and we will not know who will be with whom. We don’t see the emergence of a concrete political formation against the Congress and the BJP even during the Lok Sabha polls. There will be arrangements in every State,” he said”.
This is nothing but crash opportunism to get some seats from every state and all these ideological and principled pretentions of Comrades Prakash Karat and Sitaram Yechury will cut no ice with rational and logical minds.    r

Practice before preaching!


Obviously Jayalalitha could not stomach Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh writing to DMK President Kalaignar on October 13 stating, “I wish to inform you that a decision on the issue of my participation in the CHOGM conference will be taken only after considering all relevant factors, including the sentiments of your party and the Tamil people.” Incidentally, that was the first time that the government of India, officially made a statement on India’s participation in the Commonwealth meet in Colombo though political parties, students and civil society were staging protests, rallies and public agitations for nearly one year now. Even Jayalalitha had written letter to the Prime Minister on March 21.
When she is claiming to represent more than six crore people of Tamil Nadu, her minions have been trumpeting around that she has “emerged as leader of world Tamils”, the Prime Minister, on his own, conveying for the first time the official stand of the Government of India in a letter to Kalaignar, her political bete noire, had incensed her. So, she also sent another missive to the Prime Minister on October 17 referring to his statement (in the letter to Kalaignar) “that he would keep in mind the sentiments of the Tamil people while deciding on his participation” in the CHOGM conference in Colombo, and adding a rider that “India should not participate…. at any level, whether titular, ministerial or official”, thus keeping her options open for further ‘one-upmanship’ politicking, if need be.
But what matters people of Tamil Nadu are the reasons adhered by Jayalalitha for calling India’s boycott of the meet in Sri Lankan capital. When all other say these same reasons they have a moral locus standi. But Jayalalitha speaking on those lines is akin to Satan preaching scriptures. She has stated in her letter to the Prime Minister, “If India stayed away from the meeting, it would demonstrate the country’s commitment to upholding the values of democracy and respect for human rights globally. In turn, people of the State and in the functionaries and cadre of the ADMK including the unfortunate Ministers of her Cabinet, in silence of course, would like to ask her what about her commitment to upholding the values of democracy and respect for human rights? People of Tamil Nadu need no elaboration.

Why this ‘kolaveri’?

 “Personal interests must be subordinated to the Party’s interests, the interests of the local Party organization to those of the entire Party, the interests of the part to those of the whole, and temporary to long-term interests. This is a Marxist-Leninist principle which must be followed by every Communist”.   - Liu Shao Chi How to be a good Communist, 1939 

Of course, this condition put forth by the great Chinese helmsman, second to Mao Tse Dung, for a good communist can never be applicable to the intractable chatterbox D. Pandian, paradoxically the Tamil Nadu State Secretary of the Communist Party of India (CPI).
In an exclusive interview to ‘The Hindu’ (Tamil) on October 13, to the question about the reported strategy to push Jayalalitha towards the post of Prime Minister with the support of the BJP, Pandian has ‘enthusiastically’ said, “You can mark it as happy. I will be happy if Jayalalitha becomes Prime Minister by hook or by crook, I’ll be happy”. Asked about her Prime Minister dream, he has said, “If Jayalalitha becomes Prime Minister on behalf of the third front, is it not good news for Tamil Nadu? Let it happen”.
What Pandian has not made clear is whether this is his personal desire or the stand of his party, the CPI. It is quite unlikely of their central leadership approving this bizarre idea of their TN state secretary. It is for their National Secretary D.Raja to explain. If he also takes up a wishy-washy stand adducing something like ‘personal opinion’, then, borrowing the words of Rajnikanth, ‘even god cannot save’ whatever is left of their party.
Asked, “Have you become an extremely loyal man of the ruling party? They say ‘Pandian has mortgaged party to ADMK for the sake of MP seat?”  Pandian has replied, “Communist Party is a world party. ADMK is a regional party. Can a world party be mortgaged to a regional party? Those who say so are damn fools”. It is altogether different that his party faced the danger of losing ‘national party’ status from the Election Commission and could sustain by the grace of other Left parties like the CPM. What transpires from this interview and from his latest utterances is that he is more than an ordinary ADMK minion totally loyal to its supremo.
How does he estimate the two and a half year regime of ADMK? He says, “In the whole of India, this is the rule that implements many people’s welfare schemes. It was TN which first gave free ration rice in ration shops, gives four gram gold and Rs.50,000 for marriage assistance of poor women. In which place do they give idli for one rupee and sambar rice for Rs.5? Outside water is sold for Rs.20 but TN government gives for Rs.10. thus many good works are done. We cannot but appreciate”.
The daily’s correspondent perhaps could not digest a ‘communist leader’ hailing selling of water by the government and points out that providing protected drinking water is the duty of a welfare state and asks as a communist how can he appreciate this. Pandian has said, “In a government not ruled by communists only this can be called as achievement”. If this is the yardstick for him to measure a government, then all state governments and in the country and even the Centre should be appreciated by him. But he and his party use the scale of communists for that. Is it not double standard? If you try to defend the indefensible, this is how you will start prattling.
Even a political novice will ask to how many people do they provide food at these cheap prices and will say that this is a humbug to cheat people. CPM politburo member Brinda Karat has condemned the government selling drinking water. Providing protected drinking water is not a charity by the government because the citizens are paying water tax to local bodies and one percent of the bus fares all over the State go to the government for maintenance of bus stands and providing drinking water and toilet facilities in all bus stands. If the government sells water to passengers, it is a failure to be condemned.
The state secretary may be all in praise for Jayalalitha, but even an ordinary member of the CPI will list the reasons for this to be called an anti-people anti-democratic.
Pandian has said politics in Tamil Nadu has come to standstill and the principal Opposition party (he means the DMK which was in power earlier) is not agitating and only his party was resorting to stirs. He also blames people for not taking interest in agitations and more preoccupied with entertainment.
People outside the State, who could observe state of affairs in Tamil Nadu only through media, might possibly think that politics here had come to standstill and there are no stirs by political parties on issues of people, because that is the impression given by the dailies, periodicals and TV channels, singing paeans for the ruling party and imposing blackout on the statements and actions of the DMK.
But people of the State, by their day-to-day experience, are raging against the ADMK regime and, in spite of the motivated designs of the media, have started realising that it is only the DMK which is fighting against this anti-people and anti-democratic regime. In fact, if there is one leader in the Opposition who takes this government to task almost daily, he is Kalaignar. If there is one party which takes up every problem of people, at the State and local levels, and fights for them, it is the DMK.
Issues on which the DMK launched agitations since Jayalalitha assumed office in May 2011:
2011: June-July Students protests all over the State against ADMK regime move to scrap Samacheer Kalvi; July 29 DMK call for boycott of educational institutions in TN protesting against move to scrap Samachher Kalvi; July 30 Arrest of M.K.Stalin in Tiruvarur leads to spontaneous protests all over the state; August 1 over 2.5 lakh DMK workers arrested all over TN protesting against foisting of false cases on DMK functionaries and cadre; August 25 public meetings in all districts on ‘Ordeal of democracy in TN Assembly’; Nov 15 DMK Youth wing demonstrations all over the State protesting against ADMK government’s move to sack 13,000 Makkal Nala Paniyalargal, over 1.5 lakh participate; December 12 Thousands of DMK cadre observe a day’s fast all over the State on Mullaiperiyar dam issue.
2012: January 5 Kalaignar treks through 550 km of cyclone Thane-ravaged areas of Puducherry, Cuddalore and Nagapattinam districts hearing the woes of people and consoling them, announces Rs.50 lakh as relief from the Party; April 9 DMK demonstrations all over the state condemning new tax burden, hike in bus fares, milk prices and power tariff; July 4: 2,32,797 cadre court arrest throughout TN  in ‘Fill the Jail’ stir condemning repressive measures of the ADMK regime; August 12 TESO conclave and conference on the protection of Eelam Tamils’ right to life and livelihood; October 5 Black attired DMK volunteers on door-to-door campaign against failures and misdeeds of ADMK regime following denial of permission for huge human chains in Chennai and all district headquarters. November   Thalapathi M.K.Stalin and T.R.Baalu present petition of demands of Kalaignar based on resolutions adopted at the TESO conference to UN Deputy Secretary General Jan Kenneth Eliasson at the UN office in New York on November 1 and to UNHRC High Commissioner Navaneetham Pillay on Nov 6 in Geneva; December 18 Lakhs of DMK cadre participate in protest demonstrations at 500 centres in the state from cities to hamlets condemning the regime for failure to resolve power crisis
2013 Feb 8 TESO demonstration in Chennai with black dress protesting the visit of Rajapaksa; Feb 18 and 19 TESO demonstrations in Rameswaram and Nagapattinam against attacks on fishermen by Lankan navy; March 5 Thousands including M.K.Stalin arrested in their attempt to picket Sri Lankan Deputy High Commissioner’s office in Chennai; March 12 TESO general strike all over the State over 50,000 arrested; April 24 conducted series of protest public meetings condemning trampling of democracy in TN Assembly; April 27 DMK moves Supreme Court for retrieval of Katchatheevu; May 15 ‘Uprising day’ public meetings urging implementation of Sethusamudram project; July 8: About  3,62,500 men and women cadre participate in protest demonstrations all over Tamil Nadu in support of Sethusamudram project; TESO massive Tamils demonstrations against Lankan regime all over the State and in front of Parliament House in New Delhi; August 16 meeting of DMK district secretaries decide to launch stirs on local issues of people in all districts.
Such being the record of the DMK unlike any other opposition party in Tamil Nadu, it is better for Pandian to mind his words while even obliquely referring to it or its leaders in his super enthusiasm to please his benefactor Jayalalitha.       r

To whom did people vote?

On October 3, the fourth day of their hunger protest, three more students of DD Medical College, Tiruvallur fainted on the campus of Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University. The students — Muthu Ulagamai, Premnath and Illakya Das — fainted one after another as the fast progressed into the afternoon. They were rushed to Government Royapettah Hospital (GRH) for treatment. Seven students, all women, had fainted during the fast on October 2, and another student had fainted at midnight. All eight are undergoing treatment at GRH.
The students had been on a hunger strike since September 30, demanding a meeting with Chief Minister Jayalalitha. Their sit-in protest on the campus of the medical university had now gone on for nearly 50 days. They have been demanding the government’s intervention to continue their medical education after the Medical Council of India de-recognised their college in 2011. The students want the government to take over their college.
The Madras High Court on October 4 ordered notice on writ petitions seeking direction to the government to take over D.D. Medical College in Tiruvallur district. The petitions were filed at the instance of the college’s 2012-13 MBBS Students Welfare Association to enable them to complete the course and to regularise admission for the year’s batch.
Earlier, when the petitions came up for hearing, the petitioners’ counsel had sought issue of notice to the authorities and to take up the petitions early. The counsel submitted that the students had withdrawn the fast from October 4 in view of the court’s stand that they should call of their indefinite fast. Following this, the court took up the matter and ordered notice to the State government returnable by October 28.
This is not the only incident in which the Chief Minister was inaccessible to agitating students to hear their plight and the Madras High Court had to intervene and take their issue to the corridors of power.
Of all the differently abled persons the ones who immediately evoke our sympathy are the visually challenged persons, that is humane; but not for ‘Her Highness’ Jayalalitha, the present Chief Minister.
Last month, a group of visually challenged persons in Chennai were proving that physical disabilities are no barrier when it comes to putting up a fight for their rights. Since September 16, for ten consecutive days, more than 300 members of the College Students and Graduates Association for the Blind (CSGAB) courted arrests by staging a road roko in different places in the city. Their only demand – a public place where they can stage an indefinite fast over their demands and an appointment with the Chief Minister.
The police resorted to several intimidating tactics to disperse them, (to be fair to the police personnel, they must be carrying out orders ‘from above’, because they are also human beings and would not willingly wish to be rough to visually challenged persons and hurt them), including leaving them in far off places without telling them where they were dropped or misleading them about the location– once at Kovalam Beach and once at Madurantakam and Uththandi. “They told us we were at the Marina beach,” said Velmurugan, general secretary of the organisation. “We only wanted a secure place where nine of our members can stage their indefinite fast. We do not wish to stage the road roko and create trouble for public. But we are forced to do it as the police are denying us even the basic right to protest,” said R Raja, one of the protesters.
They said the police mercilessly physically dragged them on roads, forcefully thrusting them into their vehicles, they dropped them past midnight in crematoriums and hospitals. Many of the protesters were women some carrying kids. Their colleagues were agitating in other towns in the State. In support of them, visually challenged students have also joined the protests.
Four meetings with Social Welfare Minister B Valarmathi proved futile as the protesters say that the officials were only keen on stopping the protests rather than lending an earnest ear to their demands. “We started our protest in front Government Guest House at Chepauk without causing any trouble for the public. But the police forcefully removed us from the spot forcing us to stage a road roko,” said N Murthy, one of the protestors.
On September 23, representatives of the visually challenged persons held a meeting with Valarmathi. “The minister gave us mere oral promises. As she refused to give it as a form of statement to press, we have decided to continue our protest,” said a representative of CSGAB.
All the protesters are postgraduates and doctorate-holders who say that they still have to do menial jobs to earn a livelihood despite their educational qualifications. Their main demand is recruitment of visually challenged persons to teaching jobs and relaxation of the eligibility criteria for teaching recruitment in government and government-aided institutions.
 A group of nine visually-challenged graduates in the city were on indefinite fast were  removed to the Royapettah Government Hospital where they continued their fast in a corner of the hospital veranda. The condition of three of them turned serious on the ninth day of the fast and others were also laying unconscious. As the condition of Thangaraj caused concern, he was admitted in ICU. The condition of three others Veerappan, Vilwanathan and Ravichandran was worsening and intensive treatment was provided to them.
When social welfare minister B. Valarmathi, who called on them on September 23, said she would need some more time to decide on their placements, the protestors did not budge and continued their fast. She further told them that an appointment with the Chief Minister would take a month’s time and urged them to call off their fast. But the fasting persons refused to give up their fast.
The protesters were demanding 3 per cent reservation under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 to be followed in all government jobs, including placement of teachers in government schools after they had appeared in the teacher eligibility test (TET). (Now the Supreme Court on October 8 directed the Centre and all state governments to provide three per cent job reservation to disabled persons in all their departments, companies and institutions. A bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam also clarified that the principle of not exceeding more than 50 per cent reservation would not be applicable while granting quota for disabled persons.)
They said the Director of Welfare of the Physically Disabled Persons issued an order for qualifying mark to be reduced to 40 in the TET but the Secretary of the Teachers Recruitment Board refused to entertain the order of the Director. “A majority of us take up teaching as our profession as it provides us a suitable working environment,” Mahendran, a visually challenged protester said.
 “Passing school and college education itself would be a big deal for us. If we continue to be a burden on our families by not being employed, no one would care for us. We do not want to beg or steal; we want to lead a decent life. We have the qualifications needed for a teacher’s job or jobs in other sectors. And the government is the only institution to provide us the platform,” said J. Sakthivel (28). He added that compared to socially disadvantaged groups, disabled persons needed more attention.
On September 24, when they tried to meet the Director of welfare of Differently abled Persons in K.K.Nagar in Chennai, they were stopped by the police and brutally attacked and disbursed. In Madurai, visually challenged graduates resorted to dharna in front of Differently Abled Welfare office. When they tried to picket the road they were prevented and arrested.
The Association President Nagarajan has told reporters that though the government claimed to spend crores every year for their welfare, except supply of folding sticks and glasses nothing was done. The IAS officer posted last year for their welfare was disinterested and hence other officers also didn’t work with interest. Hundreds of their associations in the State had been organising protests pressing for their demands and now they had no other go than coming to streets. If their welfare schemes were properly implemented they would have progressed long back, he had said.
In a discussion programme ‘Nerpada Pesu’ in ‘Puthiya Thalaimurai’ news channel in which the functionaries of the GSGAB, a retired government officer and a retired police official participated, the functionaries of the Association were asked why they insisted on meeting the Chief Minister and not others and whether it was correct for them to picket roads causing difficulties to the public. They listed the details of officials at various levels and the minister, the dates on which they met them in the last two years and what was their responses. At every level the invariable reply was that they would convey their representation to ‘the higher authority’ but nothing happened. That is they sought meeting with the highest authority in the State, the Chief Minister.
And they did not take to road immediately as they didn’t want to cause any nuisance to people. They started the fast near Chepauk Guest House but the police removed them. Then they sought a different place in the city to observe fast but the police did not give permission. So they were forced to resort to road roko to get the attention of the government more particularly the Chief Minister, the only authority in this regime.
Till the tenth day of their stir, Chief Minister Jayalalitha, who was otherwise busy’ with Indian Cinema Centenary Celebrations, had no time or mind for these hapless persons.
Finally the Madras High Court on September 26, took up a letter written by a visually challenged lawyer to the Chief Justice on the issue as a petition and directed the State government to file the response in a counter on October 3. In the letter addressed to the Chief Justice, the visually challenged lawyer Mohamed Nazrullah stated that the police were severely treating the visually challenged who were conducting peaceful demonstration and fast and assaulting them. These men and women were taken by the police in nights to far-off places and leave them near crematorium and other secluded places. A woman was injured in police assault and admitted to hospital. They were also on an indefinite fast. He pleaded the Chief Justice to intervene to stop the highhandedness of police and allow them to conduct the stir in a peaceful manner.
The First Bench of Chief Justice (in-charge) Agarwal and Justice Sathyanarayanan took up the letter as petition for hearing and ordered notice to the government. Receiving the order government pleader S.T.S.Moorthy asked for time to file reply of the government and the Bench posted the case on October 3. Earlier the Bench asked the counsel for the protestors to ask them to call off their stir including fast, which was obliged.
It was only after the intervention of the High Court that on October 1, a statement of Jayalalitha was issued by the government on the demands of the protestors. 
These are not an isolated incidents of aggrieved sections of the society going on different forms of agitations to get their grievance ‘noticed’ and redressed after all their attempts in meetings with authorities at various levels did not bear fruit, because at every level they were invariably told that their representation would be forwarded to the higher authorities and so on. By sheer experience, people have learnt that there is only one ‘super authority’ in ADMK regime, i.e., the Chief Minister and the ministers, Chief Secretary, secretaries of departments, Director General of Police and his lower rank police officers et al., are just ‘powerless messengers’. They have also learnt that it is not at all possible to get the audience of the Chief Minister and the only way to take their issues to her notice is to knock the doors of the High Court.
They now only wonder as to whom did they vote for, if ‘Fort’ St George had to be made responsive by the ‘Court’!    r

Waves of Memory!


“Holding that it was a mala fide exercise of power (by the Karnataka government), the Supreme Court on September 30 quashed the Karnataka government order removing G. Bhavani Singh as Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) for conducting trial in disproportionate assets cases against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalitha and three other accused.
A Bench of Justices B.S. Chauhan and S.A. Bobde, while disposing of petitions filed by Jayalalitha and three others, asked the Karnataka High Court to consider extending the services of the present special judge (who retired on the same day, September 30) for continuing the trial.
(Jayalalitha, Sasikala, Ilavarasi and V.N. Sudhakaran had challenged the removal of the SPP and sought a direction to extend the services of the present judge.)
Writing the judgment, Justice Chauhan said: “In the instant case, there has been a change of political party in power in May 2013 and thus, the order of the State government is alleged to be politically motivated. In our opinion, though there is an undoubted power with the government to withdraw or revoke the appointment within Section 21 of the General Clauses Act but that exercise of power appears to be vitiated in the present case by mala fides in law inasmuch as it is apparent on record that the switchover of the government in between has resulted in a sudden change of opinion that is abrupt for no discernible legally sustainable reason.
“The sharp transitional decision was an act of clear unwarranted indiscretion actuated by an intention that does not appear to be founded in good faith. Fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure and such fairness should not be hampered or threatened in any manner.”
Earlier during the proceedings, DMK General Secretary Prof. K.Anbazhagan had opposed Jayalalitha’s plea, saying that she and other accused were responsible for the protracted trial in the 17-year-old case.
Attorney General GE Vahanvati, appearing for Karnataka government, had also opposed the plea of Jayalalitha on the SPP and for extension of the tenure of the special judge till the completion of the trial.
The bench had deliberated on the political overtones on the issue of the appointment and sacking Singh as the SPP. “Was there (in Karnataka) the same government? When did the government change,?” the bench had asked.
The Attorney General had said the new government came on May 8 this year but the appointment of Singh was done without any consultation between the state government and the chief justice of the Karnataka high court.
Earlier, senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Jayalalitha, said: “These are political battles fought here.  Bhavani Singh was appointed on February 2 and he was removed when he had almost completed the arguments. I [Jayalalitha] have already suffered for 17 years because of the delay. The whole idea is to keep the sword hanging when elections are round the corner and to keep the pot boiling. If the August 26 notification is withdrawn then Singh must continue in his post.”
“He is my political opponent - respondent 5 (DMK General Secretary K. Anbazhagan) ... whole history of this case is Karnataka playing in the hands of respondent 5,” said senior counsel appearing for Jayalalitha.
He said the Karnataka government’s action would further delay the conclusion of the trial. Naphade told the court that new SPP would take time to go through the case and similarly the new judge too would need the time to get abreast of the case. As the court asked him how the change of SPP concerned Jayalalitha as authorities could always do it, Naphade said his grievance is how could the decision of previous chief justice be “condemned”.
“How it concerns you; I am the authority”, observed Justice Chauhan as Naphade said that the decision of the previous chief justice stands condemned as if the acting chief justice passed the order mechanically. “It makes difference to me as a trial is getting prolonged,” Naphade told the court.
Senior counsel Vikas Singh appearing for DMK General Secretary K. Anbazhagan submitted that it was unprecedented that the accused should decide as to who should be the SPP.
“Mala fide exercise of power’ ‘protracted trial for 17 years’ and ‘expediting trial’ have been cited as reasons for this order of the Supreme Court. Jayalalitha has also questioned the locus standi of Prof. K.Anbazhagan, being her political rival, which was not contested by the court.
All these, generate waves of memory of the last 17 years in this case.
Commenting on the Supreme Court on October 19, 2011 ordering Jayalalitha to at last appear before the Special Court in Bangalore on the next day in the Disproportionate Assets case against her, DMK General Secretary Prof. K. Anbazhagan said, “It was inevitable for the court, because it felt that it was taken for granted by the accused, who perhaps had taken the maximum number of adjournments (vaidha) in the country and any more leniency shown to them would lead to non-disposal of any case.”
In a pre-Assembly election interview given to the NDTV in March I 2011, Jayalalitha took exception to the North Indian media calling her also as corrupt along with other leaders of TN and said that the cases filed against her were ‘politically vindictive’ and that she had come out clean in all of them except in a couple of cases. Those who had followed the case-histories in cases against her, know that her claim is a misinterpretation and debauched. A reading of the Supreme Court judgement in TANSI case will make clear as to whether she was acquitted or managed to get it. If at all she had any respect for judiciary, she should have quit public life forever if she had ‘atoned her conscience’, as the apex court wanted.
It was indeed trying for courts hearing her cases and appeals after appeals for years and years. Taking this Disproportionate Assets case filed in the year 1996, the journey all along these 17 years was long-drawn out and tedious involving Special courts in Chennai and Bangalore, Madras and Karnataka High Courts and Supreme Court. That she acquired the distinction of being called ‘Vaaidha Rani’ for seeking adjournments for more than 130 times in Special Court, Bangalore alone till September 2011, beside the prolonging tactics adopted by her in Chennai trial court and on appeals to higher courts, on flimsy grounds, beginning with challenging the very setting up of special court.
After delaying for six years, and in between Jayalalitha returning to power in 2001, the ‘process of justice was being subverted’ (Supreme Court observation). On November 18, 2003, the Supreme Court ordered the transfer of the two Disproportionate Assets cases against her and four others from a Chennai special court to a special court in Bangalore. A Bench, comprising Justice S. N. Variava and Justice H. K. Sema, thereby allowed the petitions filed by the General Secretary of DMK, Prof. K. Anbazhagan praying for a direction to transfer the cases to a court outside Tamil Nadu to ensure a free and fair trial.
The court had on February 28 stayed all further proceedings in the two cases pending before a Chennai Special Court. The Bench held that Prof. Anbazhagan had made out a case that public confidence in the fairness of trial was being seriously undermined and great prejudice appeared to have been caused to the prosecution which could culminate in miscarriage of justice. The Bench rejected the charge made on behalf of Jayalalitha that the petitioner being a political opponent had filed the petition due to political vendetta and hence had no locus standi. “This submission has no force,” the Bench noted and added that “in a democracy, the political opponents play an important role both inside and outside the House. They are the watchdogs of the Government in power.” In that view of the matter, the petition lodged by such persons could not be brushed aside on the allegation of political vendetta. The petitioner being a political opponent “is vitally interested in the administration of justice in the State” and is a “party interested” within the meaning of Sec. 406 (2) Criminal Procedure Code (which provides for transfer of a case from one court to another), the Bench said.
The petitioner’s senior counsel, T.R. Andhyarujina, argued that if this case was allowed to continue in Chennai in the hostile atmosphere prevailing in the State it might result in another “Best Bakery case” of Gujarat (in which all the 21 accused were acquitted by a trial court) and the Bench, by transferring the case to Bangalore, has agreed with the contention. The judges said that “it is undisputed that 76 witnesses have been recalled. Many of them had earlier been cross-examined. We were informed that witnesses were recalled as senior counsel for Jayalalitha had been busy attending to some other case filed against her when they were first examined.”
The Bench said that the fact that witnesses were recalled for cross-examination on flimsy grounds after Jayalalitha assumed power as Chief Minister and the Public Prosecutor appointed by her Government did not oppose and/or gave consent to application for recall of witnesses was indicative of how “judicial process is being subverted.”
“Free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. It is trite law that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to have been done. If the criminal trial is not free and fair and not free from bias, judicial fairness and the criminal justice system would be at stake shaking the confidence of the public in the system and woe would be the rule of law,” the judges observed.
In the present case, the Bench said, “it appears that process of justice is being subverted... The circumstances are such that it would create reasonable apprehension in the minds of the public, at large, in general, and the petitioner, in particular, that there is every likelihood of failure of justice.”
The judges took serious exception to the trial court dispensing with the personal appearance of Jayalalitha and said “be you ever so high, the law is above you. The grounds cited by her in the application were not all mitigating circumstances to have granted dispensation of personal appearance. To say the least, that was a ploy adopted to circumvent the due process of law.”
Referring to the submissions made by K.K. Venugopal, senior counsel for Jayalalitha, that the apex court had allowed the accused to dispense with their personal appearance in certain cases, the Bench made it clear that “the general rule remains that the accused must answer the questions by personally remaining present in the court. It is only in exceptional circumstances that the general rule can be departed/ dispensed with. In this case, Jayalalitha was available at Chennai and there was no exceptional exigency or circumstances such as her having to undertake a tedious long journey or incur a whopping expenditure to appear in court to answer the questions under Sec. 313 Cr.PC. The conduct of the Public Prosecutor in not opposing such a frivolous application has to be deprecated.”
The Bench issued the following directions: The State of Karnataka, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court, shall constitute a special court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to whom the two cases pending on the file of XI Addl. Sessions Judge, Chennai shall stand transferred. The special court should have its sittings in Bangalore. The State of Karnataka shall appoint a special judge within a month and trial shall start as soon as possible and will then proceed from day-to-day till completion. Tamil Nadu shall ensure that all documents and records are forthwith transferred to the special court in Bangalore.
The State shall appoint within six weeks a senior lawyer having experience in criminal trials as the Public Prosecutor to conduct these cases and he shall have an assistant of his choice; the investigating agency shall render all assistance to the Public Prosecutor and his assistant; the Public Prosecutor will be at liberty to recall witnesses who had resiled from their previous statement and declare them as hostile and seek permission to cross-examine them. He will also be at liberty to take action for perjury against some or all such witnesses. In case any witness asks for protection, Karnataka shall provide protection to that witness; the special judge shall put to all the accused all relevant evidence and documents appearing against them whilst recording their statement under Sec. 313 CrPC. All the accused shall personally appear in the court to answer questions under Sec. 313 CrPC on the day they are called upon to do so.
“In our view, the petitioner has raised many justifiable and reasonable apprehensions of miscarriage of justice and likelihood of bias, which would require our interference,” the judges said and ordered the transfer of the two cases to a special court in Bangalore.
But Jayalalitha, as was her wont, once again moved the apex court. The Supreme Court rejected an application of Jayalalitha, seeking transfer of the Disproportionate Assets cases against her and four others from a Bangalore court to a court in any other State, preferably in Andhra Pradesh.
A Bench consisting of Justice S.N. Variava and Justice H.K. Sema held that “no case is made out for modification of our order [dated November 18, 2003, shifting the two cases from a Chennai special court to a Bangalore court]. The petitions are dismissed being devoid of merits.”
“To say the least, the apprehensions [of Jayalalitha] with regard to the Cauvery water dispute and forest brigand Veerappan have got nothing to do with the judicial function of the court. At the same time, the security and safety of the applicant and witnesses are well safeguarded as highlighted in the counter affidavit of Karnataka,” the Bench said.
Seeking to modify the order, Jayalalitha had contended that in view of the surcharged atmosphere and large scale agitation by a section of the people of Karnataka targeting her as well as attacks on Tamil speaking people caused by the highly sensitive Cauvery water dispute, she would not get a free and fair trial in that State.
Rejecting this submission, the Bench pointed out that Karnataka, in its affidavit, had stated that the “false and self-serving” statements had been made by Jayalalitha to bolster her plea for relief. Also, there was no reason to apprehend that Karnataka would not take adequate steps for ensuring a fair and free trial as directed by the apex court.
The Bench also noted the submission made by the State Advocate-General, A.N. Jayaram, that Karnataka “has no interest in the outcome of the trial” and “looks upon it only as a constitutional duty to be discharged to effectuate the order of the apex court.” Further, the Advocate-General had submitted that the State had already constituted the special court on the City Civil Court campus in Bangalore and a special judge had been appointed.
In the light of these submissions, the Bench said “we are not persuaded to re-appreciate the circumstances leading to the filing of the transfer petitions and order of this court transferring the same to Karnataka.”
The Bench noted that “after hearing both the sides and threadbare discussion, this court was of the view that it is expedient for the ends of justice [that] the cases be transferred from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka for trial in accordance with law.”
Referring to her plea for shifting the case to Pondicherry, the Bench said that under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the apex court could order transfer of a case from the jurisdiction of one High Court to another, and in respect of Pondicherry, it was within the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court. Therefore, if her submission was accepted it would amount to transfer of a case from the Madras High Court to the same jurisdiction of the High Court and that situation was not contemplated under Section 406 Cr.P.C.
The Judges said “we must unequivocally say that in a democratic country like ours, governed by the Rule of Law, the efficient and independent judiciary manned the subordinate courts, where justice is administered impartially, fearless of public glamour, regardless of public responses and indifferent to private, political or partisan influences.”
“We have no least doubt in our mind that the judge who has been assigned the job will do well in discharging his divine duty in accordance with law, keeping in mind the above principles,” the Bench observed and dismissed the application.
Again she moved a review petition and on Apr.28, 2004, the Supreme Court rejected Jayalalitha’s petition seeking review of its order transferring the trial of two disproportionate assets cases from Chennai to a special court in Bangalore. Her review petition was rejected by a division bench of Justices S..Variava and H.K. Sema. Jayalalitha had requested the court to shift the trial of the Rs.66.67 crore Disproportionate Assets cases to any state other than Karnataka.
Once again she moved a curative petition in the Supreme Court on Jan.18, 2005. Leaving no option for Jayalalitha but to face trial at Bangalore, the Supreme Court dismissed her petition seeking stay on the trial and permission to argue for transfer of the case outside Karnataka.
A five-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice R C Lahoti, Justice N SantoshHegde, Justice Y K Sabharwal, Justice S N Variava and Justice H K Sema dismissed her curative petition against the Court’s November 18, 2003 order transferring the trial from Chennai to Bangalore for holding a “free and fair” trial. The November 19 order was passed by a Bench comprising Justice Variava and Justice Sema on a petition filed by DMK leader K Anbazhagan seeking transfer of the case outside the State alleging “undue haste” shown by prosecution to complete the trial against the Chief Minister. The same Bench had on February 17, 2004 dismissed an application seeking modification of the order on the ground that the situation in Karnataka was hostile to her in view of her stand in the ongoing Cauvery water dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. It had on April 28 dismissed her petition seeking review of the November 18 order and seeking transfer of the case outside Karnataka to any other State including Pondicherry. Jayalalitha exercised her last option in August last year by filing the curative petition. The five-Judge Bench dismissed it saying “no case was made out” according to the parameters fixed by apex Court for entertaining her curative petition.
With all these the trial in the Special court was set to begin. According to SC order, senior counsel B.V.Acharya was appointed as the Public Prosecutor and a charge-sheet running to about 75,000 pages was filed and 45 witnesses were cited.
In the very next week, Jayalalitha filed a petition in Karnataka High Court seeking to discharge her in the case, which was dismissed on March 18, 2004. From then on the accused pleaded adjournments for reasons such as quashing the trial, demanding three sets of charge-sheet to each of the four accused, copy of the charge-sheet translated into English, finding mistakes in translation, demanding cross examination of translators, against deposition of witnesses, the father of the counsel of one of the accused expired, finding out mistakes in charge-sheet, Assembly polls in TN, time for appointing new counsel etc.,
Adjournments sought since 2005:
2005: Mar.14, 28, May 16, 25, 27, 28, June 4,7,9, 21, 22, 23, 27, 29, July 12, 16, 22, 23, 26, 27, Aug. 2, 10, 26, Oct.10, Nov.19
2006: June 3, July 29, Sep.2, Oct.28, Nov.25
2007: Feb.9, Mar.24, Apr.28, July 21, Sep.22, Oct.27, Dec.25
2008: Feb.2, Apr.5, May 3, Aug.2, Sep.6, 27, Nov.3, Dec.6
2009: Jan.3, Apr.4, 30, May 5, June 16, July 23, Aug.27, Sep.5, 10, Oct.20, Dec.19
2010: Jan. 23, 30, Feb.8, 19, 25, Mar.3, 4, 5, 18, 22, May 3, 7, 25, June 3, 14, 26, 30, July 22, Aug.6, 21, 28, Sep.13, 23, 30, Oct.19, Nov.18, 25, 30, Dec.15, 16
2011 : Jan 4, 18, 19, 27, 29, Feb.8, 14, Mar.9, 26, Apr.2, 6, 19, 26, May 15, 26,30, Jun.3, 8, 15, 18, 23, July 8, 14 ……
After all impediments caused by her and her associates to the due process of law, the Special court started examining 45 prosecution witnesses from Sep.30 2010 at the rate of five a day and completed it. The counsels for the accused also completed cross examination of witnesses. Her plea for re-examination of witnesses was also rejected.
After the ADMK won the election in 2011 and Jayalalitha assumed office on May 16, 2011, it was reported that the Chief Secretary convened a review meeting of the DVAC and directed them to reinvestigate the Assets case against her. But on a petition from Prof. K.Anbazhagan the Special court and then the Karnataka High Court quashed the decision of DVAC to conduct further probe which would only be an attempt to destroy the evidence already on record.
The High Court noticed that when the case was transferred to the Special Court in Bangalore, accused No.1 (Jayalalitha) was the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and in the subsequent elections her party was defeated. However, in the recent elections (May 2011) held to the State Assembly, the party headed by her secured majority and she has been sworn in as Chief Minister just a few days prior to the filing of this application.
“The fact that now the Superintendent of Police, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai, is trying to bypass the SPP makes this court to note that the observations made by the Apex Court in the order of transfer that the process of justice was being subverted would apply to the present situation,” the court said.
It is after all these developments that Jayalalitha was directed by the Supreme Court on Oct.19, 2011 to appear before the Special Court in Bangalore on the next day to answer questions under Sec.313 Cr.P.C.  She did so on Oct.20 and 21 and answered 567 questions out of 1,339 questions. When it became clear on October 21, that the deposition would spill over into the next day, Jayalalitha had refused to stay the night in Bangalore, preferring to fly back home in her special aircraft to Chennai and return again the next morning. She still had 768 questions.
The session was posted on Nov. 8 for further questioning. But she did not appear before the court on that day. The hearing was held on November 8 too, but Jayalalitha appealed in the Supreme Court that she be excused from the hearing; she said she did not want to inconvenience the people of Bangalore and so had sought permission to answer questions in writing.
The top court turned down her appeal not to appear in person but said she should be given a date of her choice. Her two appearances on October 20 and 21 too came after the Supreme Court over-ruled her concerns about security in Bangalore.
Karnataka said it would provide her with the best security, and it did. There were 1,500 policemen posted, 500 of them Tamil Nadu cops making up the innermost cordon around their CM. Then there were National Security Guard (NSG) commandos. A convoy of 20 cars escorted the Chief Minister along a 60-km route from the HAL airport to Bangalore’s Central Prison, opposite which the trial court hearing the case sits.
Jayalalitha resumed her deposition before a special trial court in Bangalore for the third time on November 22 and completed deposition on 23rd.
Thereafter, the session for deposition of Sasikala was dragged on from December 2011 to June 2012. At one point of her deposition, the Special Court on May 2, 2012 pulled up second accused Sasikala for pointing fingers at others during her deposition in the case.
Judge B M Mallikarjunaiah pulled up Sasikala when she dragged the name of DMK General Secretary K Anbazhagan, on whose plea the case was transferred to Bangalore by the Supreme Court, and the party’s President Kalaignar M Karunanidhi.
While responding to a question posed by the Judge about the financial transactions of firms in which she was a partner and Director, she indirectly blamed Prof. Anbazhagan for the inordinate delay in the case. “Instead of showing fingers at others and making such elaborate statements which are not needed for the recording of statement under section 313 CrPC, you can make written submissions and say whatever you want to say. Please understand the ambit of section 313 and restrict yourself to that”, the Judge said.
Most of the questions related to firms including Jaya Publications, Sasi Enterprises, Vinod Video Vision in which she is either a partner or a director along with Jayalalitha except Vinod Video Vision and Metal King which are her proprietary concerns. The court adjourned further recording of Sasikala statement to May 17.
In the meanwhile, she obtained a stay by the Karnataka High Court on May 15, 2012 for three weeks the proceedings against them in the Special Court.
Ordering the issue of notice to Special Public Prosecutor in the case BV Acharya, Justice B V Pinto stayed the proceedings on a criminal petition filed by Sasikala, the second accused, challenging the April 21 order of the special court. The special court Judge BM Mallikarjunaiah had rejected the applications filed by Jayalalitha and Sasikala seeking perusal of unmarked documents pertaining to the case on grounds that the plea was not maintainable.
Sasikala had till then answered 632 out of over 1000 questions framed by the court under section 313 of the CrPC (Criminal Procedure Code). On May 2, the trial court has adjourned further recording of Sasikala’s statement to May 17 and then to June 6, following the stay.
On September 27, 2012 The Supreme Court permitted Sasikala to inspect certain documents filed by the probe agency in the disproportionate assets case pending against them before a Bangalore trial court. A Bench of justices P. Sathasivam and Ranjan Gogoi while allowing Sasikala’s plea said the same shall be completed within 21 days and the special court trying the offence would determine the venue. The apex court, however, clarified that the order would not affect, in any manner, any part of the ongoing trial or examination of the witnesses that has taken place so far.
The court had on September 5 reserved its order after hearing arguments by Sasikala’s counsel on her appeal against the Karnataka High Court ruling, which had concurred with the trial court order that she was not entitled to the documents which were not part of the charge-sheet.
Earlier on June 25, the apex court had refused to stay the trial but had allowed her to place on record the relevant material relating to her claim that she was not provided with certain documents relating to the questions put to her in the ongoing day-to-day trial.
In the meanwhile, B.V. Acharya, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) in the disproportionate assets case against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalitha ever since it was transferred to Bangalore Special Court in 2004, resigned from the post on August 14, 2012, stating that he “had suffered untold hardship and embarrassment at the instance of ‘interested parties’ whose sole objective appears to be to get rid of me as SPP.”
 Acharya resigned from the post of Advocate-General in February 2012, alleging that the BJP government in Karnataka was “pressuring” him to quit the post of SPP.
When contacted, Acharya, 78, said: “The interested parties, having failed to achieve the objective by ‘inducements’ and threats, initiated several proceedings with [an] oblique motive. Petitions were filed before the High Court and the Governor seeking my removal from the post of SPP when I was holding the post of Advocate-General.”
“As a last resort, a private complaint was filed before the Special Lokayukta Court making false and baseless allegations against me, citing my position in the BMS Educational Trust, and an order was obtained for investigation against me. Finally, the High Court recently quashed that complaint, imposing a fine of Rs. 50,000 on the complainant. The filing of complaint and the order for investigation have hurt me deeply, causing acute embarrassment and mental agony to me,” he added.
Even the High Court, in its August 3 order quashing the complaint against him, had found that there was “sufficient weight” in Acharya’s contention that the complaint was motivated, and was an attempt to humiliate and coerce  Acharya to quit his post as SPP.
Sources close to him said Acharya, who was appointed SPP in 2005 after the case was transferred to Bangalore from Chennai by an order of the Supreme Court, has narrated in his resignation letter the lack of progress in the trial due to the “obstructionist attitude” of defence (Jayalalitha).
 Acharya is said to have stated in the letter that he was not in a position to withstand the strain attached to the office of the SPP owing to these false allegations. He is also said to have expressed his “helplessness” in continuing in the post, though, by resigning he might be allowing the “interested parties” to achieve their objective [of removing him from the post of SPP] as he had to take care of his health too.
He is also said to have stated that he accepted the assignment of SPP assuming that it would be over in about a year, but even nearly eight years after the transfer of the trial to a Bangalore court, not much progress had been made because of petitions filed by the accused (Jayalalitha) regularly before the High Court as well as the Supreme Court.
However, the then Chief Justice Vikramajit Sen did not give his consent for the resignation and asked him to continue till alternative arrangements were made. The papers remained in the office of the Chief Justice since August 2012. Meanwhile, Chief Justice Vikramjit Sen was elevated as judge of the Supreme Court on December 24, 2012 and following this the senior-most Judge in the High Court, Justice K. Sreedhar Rao, was appointed acting Chief Justice. Though Acharya submitted his resignation in August last, in the absence of its acceptance  Acharya remained as SPP on record though it was his assistant, Sandesh J Chouta, who continued argument before the Special Court till second week of January this year.
Within a few days after assuming office, acting Chief Justice Sreedhar Rao agreed to accept  Acharya’s resignation. And with this the Law Department issued a Government Order on January 17, 2013, indicating that  Acharya’s resignation stands accepted.
“We did not anticipate sudden acceptance of resignation of Acharya as it was submitted five months ago. Now we have sent names of some lawyers to the acting Chief Justice for his consent for appointing any one of them to the post of SPP,” said the source then.
The Supreme Court, which in November 2003 transferred the case to Bangalore from Chennai for a fair trial, had directed the Karnataka government to appoint, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, a senior lawyer having experience in criminal trials as special public prosecutor, who in turn be entitled to assistance of another lawyer of his choice.
It was reported widely in dailies then that due to sudden creation of vacancy in the post of SPP, the proceedings in the case before the Special Court were likely to be impacted and delayed.
The prosecution, during the last proceedings on January 21, could not respond to the pleas of the accused for summoning certain documents as evidence in their support due the vacancy in the post of SPP and his assistant. Following this, the Special Court adjourned proceedings to February 4 for examining the defence witnesses. 
Even if the new Special Public Prosecutor was appointed within next a few days, it would still impact on the progress in the trial as the new legal team will require sufficient time to study the case papers, evidences, etc, said the sources in the High Court and Law department of the government, according to reports in dailies then.
But on the contrary, with the acting Chief Justice appointing Bhavani Singh, whose name was not in the list forwarded by Karnataka government, as new SPP and M.S. Balakrishna as the new judge of the Special Court, the trial proceedings were held in lightning speed with the accused Jayalalitha side exhibiting extraordinary interest in completing the trial that they had been hampering all these 17 years.
(The Karnataka High Court had on November 12, 2012 issued a notification posting M.S. Balakrishna, who was then the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, as the judge of the Special Court trying the disproportionate assets case against Jayalalitha and others.
The post was vacant since the retirement of B.M. Mallikarjunaiah and a judge of one of the special courts for CBI case was holding concurrent charge of this court till then.)
Jayalalitha on July 31 last withdrew her petition challenging the process of appointment of B.M. Mallikarjunaiah, the then judge of the Special Court trying the disproportionate assets case.
Karnataka High Court judge Justice A.S. Bopanna also permitted withdrawal of petitions filed by three others — V.K. Sasikala, J. Ilavarasi and V.N. Sudhakaran. They had filed these petitions in July 2012 and  Mallikarjunaiah retired in October 2012. The accused had contended that the Karnataka government had not issued a gazette notification appointing  Mallikarjunaiah as Special Judge to the case according to the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused had claimed as illegal the posting of Mallikarjunaiah, as judge of the 36th Additional City Civil and Sessions Court and Special Court for the case, by way of transfer by the Karnataka High Court in 2009. When the petitions came up for hearing, the counsel for the accused sought court’s permission to withdraw the petitions. During earlier hearing, the court had indicated that it would dismiss the petition.
This being the case history of delaying tactics adopted by the accuse Jayalalitha side all these 17 years and manipulations made by her whenever she assume power with mala fide intention in this Disproportionate Assets case, it is bewildering that the contentions made by the Supreme Court  Bench consisting of Justice S.N. Variava and Justice H.K. Sema on November 18,2003 and upheld by five-member Bench  comprising Chief Justice R C Lahoti, Justice N Santosh Hegde, Justice Y K Sabharwal, Justice S N Variava and Justice H K Sema on January, 18, 2005 and citing of Article 21 of the Constitution mentioned above, against Jayalalitha while transferring the case to Bangalore, are being advanced now in favour of her in the present order of the Supreme Court !
The ultimate court of people is wiser and will deliver its judgment at the appropriate time!  r