Challenge to Indian judiciary!

Speaking at the public meeting in Chennai on Feb.3 to explain the DMK General Council resolutions, Party Treasurer and Deputy Chief Minister Thiru M.K.Stalin blamed the opposition parties for blowing the spectrum issue out of proportions, in their inability to find fault with the DMK rule. Thiru A.Raja was fully cooperating in the investigations and even calmly offered to get arrested. “Did he ever not attend investigations or court proceedings?” he asked adding, on the other hand Jayalalitha was found guilty in the TANSI case, censured and acquitted by the Supreme Court advising her ‘to atone her conscience. How many adjournment’ (vaaidha) did she seek in the on-going Disproportionate Assets case in Special Court in Bengaluru? “What is the locus standi, of the ‘vaaidha rani’ to speak about spectrum case?” Thiru Stalin asked.

Thiru Stalin raised a pertinent question which Jayalalitha or those who are clinching to her for some seats in the ensuing Assembly elections can not refute.

Jayalalitha never had the guts to face corruption cases filed against her straightaway and adopted all vexations and dilatory tactics to prolong trial. On several occasions courts – from the apex court to lower civil court and criminal courts had pulled her up for unnecessarily prolonging hearings in cases on trivial grounds. But she was least perturbed and took the censures of the courts like the  buffalo drenching in rains.

Take the instance of the Income Tax Returns case against her which is still pending in the courts for more than 15 years. The IT department had originally filed a complaint against her under section 276 CC of the Income Tax Act for non-filing of returns for 1993-94. The department estimated her income tax for relevant years at about Rs.1.04 crore, for which she was liable to remit a tax of Rs.46 lakh. Till November, 2000 with interest the outstanding stood at over Rs. One crore. The department filed the chargesheet before the Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economics Offences Court – I) in Chennai in 1996. Challenging the initiation of the case, Jayalalitha moved the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings. In November 1996 the HC stayed the proceedings. The department filed the petition contending that the trial was being indefinitely delayed because of the stay. Allowing the petition the HC vacated the stay in November 2000 and trial proceedings began in December 2000.

But the case did not end here. Jayalalitha adopts the modus operandi of raising some objection or the other and going on appeals after appeals to the higher courts upto the Supreme Court. On dismissal of the pretexts she takes, she will raise some other objection… and the process go on unending, never seeing the day of completion of trial and conviction.

In the Disproportionate Assets case, also filed in 1996, after Jayalalitha’s protracting attitude, the Supreme Court in 2003, on a petition filed by DMK General Secretary, transferred the cases to a Special Court in Bengaluru and directed the state government to submit all documents relating to the case to the Bengaluru court whereafter the trial should be conducted on a day-to-day basis, all the accused including the CM should personally appear and depose during the trial. ‘The SC could not be a spectator to the dishonest way of the trial proceedings so far’. Every word and sentence of the SC order was a stricture on her dishonest attitude.

Had the trial taken place on a day-to-day basis and had Jayalalitha co-operated, the judgement would have been delivered in the case several years back. But the then ADMK regime took nearly two years to submit the documents in the Bengaluru court as against six weeks prescribed by the SC. At least after that did the trial proceedings go on? A big no!

She and other five accused did not turn up in the court four times. Refusing any more time sought by her, the Judge of the Special Court posted the case for 18.4.2005. On that day also the senior lawyer appearing for her and the accused did not turn up. The judge warned of delivering ex-parte judgements and posted the case for May 5, 2005. Despite the court’s condition that she must appear without fail, she didn’t and her lawyer sought time for a longer period. The judge gave time upto June 16, 2005 and said that was final whereafter he will start the trial.

When her lawyer pleaded work in some other court, the irritated judge remarked, “Can the case be adjourned for you alone? This is unfair. Asking for time like this is unacceptable. For two and a half years you are prolonging the trial by seeking such adjournments. The Supreme Court has ordered for early completion of the trial. For the past six months no proceeding has taken place in the case. I am sitting alone here. I feel like being locked up in solitary confinement.”

Even after this outburst of the judge, nobody appeared on 16^th and again three weeks’ adjournment was sought. The judge posted the case on 25^th when also they didn’t appear and her lawyers pleaded for further adjournments. Can such a thing happen anywhere in the world? Till date, Jayalalitha didn’t appear in the Bengaluru court and went on appeals first for translation of the deposition of over 100 witnesses from Tamil to English, then taking objection to translations…. And now in 2011 the trial proceedings seem to have started. We don’t know what more dilatory tactics she will resort to.

On Jayalalitha adopting dilatory tactics so as to protract proceedings in cases registered against her, the CB-CID on 16.11.1998, just one year after trial began in TANSI case in 1997, (case filed in 1996) told the Special court judge that the case suffered 90 adjournments till then. The case was finally disposed of by the Supreme Court in November 2003. The number of appeals made and the adjournments sought by Jayalalitha in all the 17 cases against her have been lost count of by the prosecution agencies, various courts, the ‘records’ maintaining organization like the Guinness and even the battery of lawyers appearing for her!

Now, on February 7, Jayalalitha, in a statement on spectrum issue has said, “With the Supreme Court monitoring… I trust justice will prevail and the culprits brought to book.” Very good! If Jayalalitha has so much confidence in and regard for the Supreme Court what she should have done when in November 2003, the apex court found her guilty of misuse of power and criminal conspiracy and directed her to ‘atone for the same by answering her conscience?’ She must have quit public life itself never seeking to return to power. At least, she must desist from accusing others of imaginary charges. But the Supreme Court was wrong in addressing such a course to a person who has nothing called conscience!

Jayalalitha is a fit case for study of the efficiency and efficacy of the Indian judicial administration and system. In fact, she is a challenge to Indian judiciary!