There
seems to be a friendly contest between two Chief Ministers of states in the
country for achieving the dubious distinction of suffering highest number of
judicial setbacks and strictures by courts. The contenders for the coveted
crown of notoriety are Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalitha and her friend,
Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi.
In spite
of all his pretentions of development orientation and cock and bull story of
getting tens of thousands of Letters of Indent (LoIs) signed for investments of
tens of lakh crores of rupees in melas called ‘Vibrant Gujarat’ (For instance,
he claimed that investment proposals for Rs.20.83 lakh crores were received
during the two-day 2011 Vibrant Gujarat mela on Jan 13, 14), Modi and his
propaganda team of Sangh Parivar promoters cannot erase the soot (on his face)
of ruthless leader of state-sponsored pogrom during the post-Godhra riots in
2002, a black chapter in the history of Independent India.
Since
2002, the media has lost count of the number of judicial setbacks and details
of judicial censures suffered by Modi.
To cap it
all came an extraordinary judgment against Modi that must count among the
sharpest indictments ever handed out to any state government in the history of
Democratic India. The Gujarat High Court on Jan.18 upheld Governor Kamla
Beniwal’s appointment of Justice R.A.Mehta as the Lokayukta over the objections
by Narendra Modi and his Council of Ministers.
The
Gujarat Lokayukta has been headless since 2003, thanks to a protracted battle
over the choice of nominee that saw Modi ranged against the Governor and the
Chief Justice of the High Court. Modi not only insistently contested the
primacy the opinion implicitly granted to the Chief Justice by the Gujarat
Lokayukta Act, 1986, but remained stuck on a single name: Justice J.R. Vora,
who figured in the panel initially proposed by the Chief Justice, but who
subsequently rendered himself ineligible by virtue of his May 2010 appointment
as a director of the Gujarat Judicial Academy. The Chief Minister’s intransigence
unavoidably led to a situation of confrontation with the Chief Justice, who,
after factoring-in the state government’s objection to Justice Mehta, concluded
that he was a better choice for the post.
The
process for the appointment of a Lokayukta in the State began early last year
and the then Chief Justice Mukhopadhyaya recommended Justice Mehta's name for
the post in April 2011 after the Modi government sounded the Chief Justice
twice for the appointment of a particular retired judge for the post. Justice
Mehta, however, was not acceptable to Modi as the watchdog of the State
government.
The
Governor's August 25, 2011 order unilaterally appointing Justice Mehta as the
Lokayukta was a sequel to a series of political measures the government took
apparently to block Justice Mehta's appointment whom the ruling party believed
to be “unfriendly [to] and biased” against Modi and was “close” to some voluntary
organisations and other “known anti-Modi and anti-BJP” institutions.
In a bid
to blunt the Opposition Congress campaign against the Modi government of
alleged “large-scale corruption” in the absence of a Lokayukta, the post which
had remained vacant since 2003 after the then Lokayukta resigned in the wake of
the change of guard when Modi took over the reins from his predecessor
Keshubhai Patel, the Modi government announced constitution of a judicial
inquiry commission on August 17, 2011, to probe all allegations of corruption
not only against his government but also all the governments, including the
previous governments, that held offices in the State since 1980. Also, the
government immediately appointed justice M.B. Shah, also a retired judge of the
High Court, to constitute the judicial inquiry commission to start functioning
immediately.
On August
24, the government appointed a Cabinet sub-committee under the chairmanship of
Finance Minister Vajubhai Vala to recommend measures to amend the State
Lokayukta Act apparently with the intention to curb the powers of the Governor
in appointing the Lokayukta, making consultation with the government obligatory
and to limit the Lokayukta's areas of functioning. The appointment of the
Cabinet sub-committee was enough to alarm the Governor, who the next day issued
an unilateral order accepting the recommendation of Justice Mukhopadhyaya and
appointing Justice Mehta as the Lokayukta.
The
government the very next day filed a petition in the High Court challenging the
Governor's order. The Division Bench of the High Court on October 10 and 11
delivered a split verdict, forcing the High Court to send the matter to a third
judge to decide on the issue.
Justice
Mehta so far has not resumed office of the Lokayukta since his appointment was
challenged the very next day, but after the majority verdict he would be free
to take over the charge unless restrained by the Supreme Court.
The single
judge bench of Justice V.M.Sahai ruled that although the Governor was otherwise
required to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, he had
become obliged to exercise her discretionary powers in this case, because it
fell in the rarest of rare category where a ‘spiteful’ Chief Minister and his
‘brazen’ and ‘irrational’ Council of Ministers had put democracy in peril by
obstructing the appointment of Lokayukta.
Passing
strong strictures on Narendra Modi, Justice V.M.Sahai said, “The clear refusal
of the Chief Minister to accept the primacy of opinion of the Chief Justice of
the High Court had the velocity which had shattered the faith in rule of law
which is the essence of democracy and integrity institution of Lokayukta.”
The judge
said that looking at the “brazen conduct and irrationality of the Council of
Ministers headed by the Chief Minister,” he was of the “considered opinion”
that the Governor (Kamla Beniwal) “rightly exercised her discretionary powers
under Article 163 of the Constitution and appointed Justice (retired) Mehta as
Lokayukta.”
Justice
Sahai said a “constitutional mini-crisis was sparked off by the Chief Minister”
acting arbitrarily. The Governor's action, appointing Justice Mehta the
Lokayukta “with or without the advice of the Council of Ministers, was for
“preserving our democracy from being beleaguered and to prevent tyranny.”
He said
acceptance of the Chief Minister's August 18, 2011 letter to the Chief Justice
and the Governor, in which Modi made it clear that Justice Mehta's name was not
acceptable to the government and wanted the Chief Justice to suggest another
name, “would have resulted in a complete breakdown of the rule of law and
erosion of principles of democracy.”
Justice
Sahai's order pointed out that the appointment of the M. B. Shah Judicial
Commission to probe all allegations of corruption since 1980 and the subsequent
issuance of ordinances, for the signature of the Governor, curtailing the
powers of the Chief Justice showed that the Chief Minister was under a “false
impression that he could turn down the superiority and primacy of the Chief
Justice's opinion, which was binding.”
“The case
in hand is one of its own kind. Extraordinary situations demand extraordinary
remedies. Open resistance of the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief
Minister in not accepting the primacy of the opinion of the Chief Justice has
created a crisis situation,” the order said. Had the Chief Minister's repeated
requests to the Chief Justice to recommend the name of Justice J. R. Vora for
the post been accepted, “it would have set a pernicious trend and would have
propitiated the public functionaries who were likely to fall under the scanner
of the Lokayukta and destroyed the integrity of the institution as envisaged
under the Act.” After his objections to Justice Mehta's name were turned down
“on valid grounds,” the “miffed reaction of the Chief Minister showed his
discordant approach.”
“The
pranks of the Chief Minister demonstrate deconstruction of our democracy and
the questionable conduct of stonewalling the appointment of Justice Mehta as
Lokayukta threatened the rule of law.” The Chief Minister's refusal to perform
his statutory or constitutional obligations, and his efforts at stonewalling
the appointment of the Lokayukta by trying to amend the Act through an
ordinance, were “depraved and truculent actions. The aforesaid exceptional facts
establish that deconstruction of democracy was at work. It was necessary to
remove the aporia created by the action of the Chief Minister and a responsible
constitutional decision was required to be taken by the Governor so that
democracy may thrive.”
Justice
Sahai's order said: “For preserving our democracy from being beleaguered and to
prevent tyranny, it became absolutely essential for the Governor to exercise
her discretionary power under Article 163 and to appoint Justice Mehta as
Lokayukta, without or contrary to the aid and advice of the Council of
Ministers headed by the Chief Minister as their action and conduct were
perilous to our democracy and rule of law.”
If these
are the latest in the series of setbacks and strictures suffered by Narendra
Modi from the higher judiciary, those faced by Jayalalitha as the ruler of the
State and in her personal capacity in facing criminal cases against her, are no
less severe.
In a
single day on Jan 23, Jaya regime suffered two setbacks, one in Supreme Court
and the other in Madras High Court.
The
Supreme Court ordered stay for the Government Order issued on Augst last,
bringing Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission affairs under the purview of DVAC
of police department, based on which raids were conducted in the office and
recidences of its former chairman and members since October. Challenging the
order, a PIL was filed by Dr. A.Lakshmanan and Dr. Panneerselvam contending
that the TNPSC was an autonomous body. When it came for hearing before the
bench of Justices Dhanvir Bandari and Deepak Misra, the bench ordered stay on
the GO and for DVAC investigation.
The ADMK government
lost yet another legal battle in the Madras High Court when its order
abolishing the 12,618 Makkal Nala Paniyalargal (welfare workers) posts was
quashed by a single judge. Justice K Suguna, ordering the immediate
reinstatement of all the workers, said the government order dated November 8,
2011 had been issued due to “political and extraneous considerations.”
“Unfortunately, the government has not brought before this court any record to
substantiate the reason mentioned in the order and no argument was also
advanced by the advocate-general with regard to this,” she said.
Noting that it was a serious humanitarian
problem and that 12,618 employees could not be sent home abruptly overnight,
Justice Suguna said: “Viewing from any angle, a perusal of the details reveals
that the stand of the counsel for the petitioners that the order had been
passed for political reasons has to be accepted.” The judge referred to the
fact that the posts were first created by the DMK government in 1989, and were
abolished by the subsequent ADMK government in 1991. The posts were created
again in 1997when the DMK returned to power, only to be scrapped by the ADMK
government in 2001. Again the DMK restored the posts and re-appointed the
workers in 2006, and the present ADMK government disbanded them in 2011. Noting
that theses details clearly revealed that the reasons for the disbandment of
the posts were political, Justice Suguna said: “A political party assuming
power is entitled to engraft the political philosophy behind the party. But, in
the matter of execution of a decision taken by the previous government which
does not involve any political philosophy, the successive government is
duty-bound to continue the same rather than put an end to that.” When it is
brought to the notice of the court that for extraneous considerations and
political reasons, orders are repeatedly passed so as to affect more than
12,000employees,the court certainly has to look into the matter and see whether
the abolition of posts is justified, Justice Suguna observed. Once a budget
sanction is made for a particular post, then it will get its sanctity on a par
with other regular posts, she said, reiterating her conclusion that the
government had not been able to justify the abolition of posts with right
reasons.
The Madras
High Court stay of the conversion of the Rs 550 crore secretariat-assembly
complex into a hospital on Jan.18 is the fourth major setback to the attempts by
Jayalalitha to overturn the pet projects implemented by the DMK government.
Restraining
the Jayalalitha regime from making any further alteration to the
designer-building till the main petition against the move has been disposed of,
a division bench of the court asked the government if it had obtained
environmental clearance for making it a hospital. The court said that the
environmental clearance obtained for the construction of the building would not
include clearance for modification. “Keep your hands off the building”, the
bench said. The hearing will continue next month.
Earlier,
the Jayalalitha regime suffered legal roadblocks when it tried to reverse samacheer
kalvi system; sack a band of part-time welfare workers (makkal nala
paniyalarkal) appointed by the DMK government across the state; and convert an
ultra-modern library (Anna Centenary Library) named after Arignar Anna into a
paediatric hospital. There were also other reversals that found legal
resistance, but they were less politically significant and smaller in scale,
such as stay for cancellation of land allotted to Muthamizh Peravai and bid for
reallocation of government land to a private horticulture society, attempt to
sack APROs appointed during DMK rule and the bid to evict M.K.Stalin and
T.R.Baalu from their respective offices allotted by the Chennai Corporation.
In the
case of the education scheme, the government went up to the Supreme Court, but
in vain, while in the dismissal of the welfare workers, the High Court has
stalled the decision. The two big-ticket conversions, curiously both into
hospitals, are pending in the high court. In its excessive eagerness to overturn
the legacy of the DMK rule, the present government has embarked on changes that
could have been avoided.
The court
orders, including the latest one, in fact act as speed-breakers for overzealous
policy changes based on political expediency. In its excessive eagerness to
overturn the legacy of the DMK rule, the present government has embarked on
changes that could have been avoided. Even if the previous schemes were found
inadequate, improving them, than scrapping them, could have made tremendous
practical and governance sense in a state that requires fast-track action to
sustain a minimum socio-economic progress.
The
Samacheer Kalvi system is a case in point. When Kalaignar attempted, with
reasonable success, was to integrate various educational systems covering 12
million students, 45,000 state board schools, 11,000 matriculation schools, 25
oriental schools and 50 Anglo-Indian schools, and different syllabi, text books
and exams into a uniform system of school education.
If certain
portions of the textbooks were objectionable and Jayalalitha had her reasons to
be miffed, she could have rectified the mistake and retained the noble idea of
unifying the otherwise confusing systems of education. Instead, she tried to
drop it altogether, throwing the future of thousands of children into
uncertainty for several months. The government was stubborn until the Supreme
Court asked them to stop and go back.
Dismissing
the government’s contention, the Supreme Court even said that it was a pre-determined
political decision. Finally, the
government blacked out the objectionable content and sent the books to
students.
While the
move to convert the secretariat into a hospital did not raise any public
outrage, except perhaps derision and indifference, the decision on the Rs 170
crore Anna Centenary Library created a huge and spontaneous outcry among
various quarters. The nine-floor library, the largest in South
Asia, can accommodate 1.2 million books and has the most advanced
systems in library management.
Everything
about this library is modern and large-scale. But Jayalalitha was not amused
and found the building suitable only for a multispeciality children’s hospital,
which led to a petition in the High Court which stayed her move. There has been
an online campaign against this curious move.
The
sacking of 13,000 welfare workers, which has been stalled by the high court,
was a sad affair. Whether they were appointed by the DMK or not, the workers
had a reasonable monthly income that sustained thousands of families and
dovetailed with other public works programmes and social protection schemes
such as the NREGA. In fact, in the alternating cycle of DMK and ADMK, they got
hurt every time the government changed. When the high court reversed the order
of the state government of sacking them, the latter went to the Supreme Court,
which referred the case back to the High Court, which passed its order now.
The
Supreme Court lashed out at the ADMK regime on Nov.29 for the government’s
decision to sack about 13,000 Makkal Nala Paniyalargal (MNPs), observing that
there should be ‘some rule of law in the State.’ It said the decision reflected
badly on the rule of law in the State. A Bench of Justice D.K.Jain and Justice
Anil Dave, hearing a special leave petition against the interim order of the
Madras High Court directing re-instatement of the MNPs, asked the State Additional
Advocate General Guru Krishna Kumar, “What is happening in your State?” SC said
the workers remained in job for full five years after their appointment by the
previous regime, but the ADMK government removed them soon after assuming
office.
“How can you
justify such an action when it involved appointment and removal of such large
number of contract workers” the top court asked. Justice Jain told the ASG,
“Every five years you (State) appoint them. Thereafter, you remove them, again
appoint them. Is there not a rule of law, there must be some rule of law in the
State.
These
candid observations of the Apex court imply that whether it is ADMK or the DMK
that rule the State, the State government remains the same and the decisions
taken during the previous rule shall be binding on the succeeding regime and
shall not be changed unless patently unlawful, in which case it would have been
challenged and struck down by the courts then and there. But Jayalalitha
whimsically reverses everything constructively done during the previous DMK
rule, resulting in not only drain the public money but also causing annoyance
and distress to the people, who elected her to power.
So, the
Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court need have no doubt. Undoubtedly, there is
no rule of law in Tamil Nadu, under Jayalalitha’s dispensation.
For the
State, law is not just books of rules and codes, but the letter and spirit of
the law is paramount guideline. There is a saying in Tamil, ‘ahid tU« Ënd,
kânahir tU« K‹nd’ which means, ‘The elephant will arrive later, but the ringing
sound of the bell tied around its neck will resonate in advance.’ So also even
before Jayalalitha assumed office, the administration went astray. When the
meticulously planned and designed New Secretariat complex was inaugurated in
March 2010, even while everyone was hailing of as an architectural marvel,
Jayalalitha ridiculed the buildings ‘looking like circus tents’ and her cohorts
were declaring that she would assume power in Fort St. George. But this was
neither made a part of their election manifesto nor a point of her campaign,
lest her alliance parties and the people would not have agreed.
But even
as the poll results were trickling in on May 13, 2011 and the ADMK poised to
secure majority, the New Secretariat/ Assembly, functioning for more than a
year, was shifted overnight to Fort St. George, vacating the Classical Tamil
Library that was functioning there. Jayalalitha and her ministers were sworn-in
only on May 16 and the Cabinet meeting was also held at Fort St. George. Till
date, the government has not clarified as to who and with what authority
ordered the shifting of the Secretariat, the seat of power.
It was
Jayalalitha, who during her previous tenure announced on 23 April 2003 in the
Assembly, that her government had decided to shift the Secretariat from Fort
St. George, ‘as it was not safe and unfit for human habitation.’ But the
alternative site she proposed was turned down by the High Court. Thereafter she
chose another site in Adyar and performed Bhoomi Pooja shrouded in secret, but
could not and did not proceed further due to stiff resistance by the residents
of the area.
In the
spirit of continuity of the government in spite of change of rule, as pointed
out by the Supreme Court now, Kalaignar honoured Jayalalitha’s announcement of
shifting the Secretariat from Fort St. George and constructed in the Government
Estate on Anna Salai, which could not face any opposition.
Now
Jayalalitha has gone against her own announcement and has returned to Fort St.
George, which she said was ‘unfit for human habitation’. She and her ministers
can call themselves anyway as they please, but certainly government officials
and employees and people who visit are human beings.
In order
to justify the colossal wastage of people’s money to the tune of over Rs.1,000
crore, Jayalalitha alleged irregularities in the construction of the New
Secretariat and ‘deficiency in standards of construction’ and appointed a
Commission of Inquiry. Then she announced that the New Secretariat complex
would be converted in a multispeciality hospital and sent a team of doctors to
study such hospitals in other parts of the country.
When it is
alleged that there is ‘deficiency in standards of construction’ and it has been
set a term of reference for the Inquiry Commission, people would ask ‘how a
hospital be located in such a deficient building, risking the lives of patients
and medical staff !? Another question is, if there are only irregularities in
construction and deficiency in standards of construction,’ why not use the
complex for the purpose it was built after rectifying the deficiencies and
complete construction of other blocs so as to accommodate all departments.
If only
there is Rule of law in the State, will all these outrageous actions of an individual
springing from her personal ego and whims, be allowed to take the State and its
people for a ride?
The very
first decision of the Cabinet meeting of the ADMK regime was to put on hold
Samacheer Kalvi scheme introduced by the previous DMK rule intended to abolish
four streams of school education and replace with one uniform and equitable
syllabus and pattern of school education, after months of thorough study,
discussions and consultations with educationists and academics by an expert
committee headed by a retired Vice-Chancellor of a university. It was not
introduced in a hasty and haphazardous manner, but introduced in the first and
sixth standard in the academic year 2010-11 and for the rest of the classes
from the current academic year. Text books for the new syllabus were also
prepared, printed and kept ready for distribution. Private matriculation
schools, which were aggrieved over loss of their commercial exploitation of
education, moved upto the Supreme Court to stall Samacheer Kalvi but it was
upheld by the courts.
Hence the
question arised as to why Jayalalitha, immediately after assuming office should
resort to this action, even without any review of the system. Inasmuch as the
move was beneficial only to the aggrieved private school sharks, it was
believed that the move was in return for pre-election ‘consideration’.
Naturally aggrieved parents of over 1.25 crore school-going children, and
educationists protested and knocked the doors of judiciary. Throughout the
State students agitated. Unmoved and adamant the ADMK regime brought an
amendment Act to postpone implementation of the system. It was challenged in
the Madras High Court. While delivering the verdict, Justices S. Rajeswaran and
Tmt. K.P.K. Vasuki said, “The intention of Samacheer Kalvi is clear. A study
team consisting of best experts studied in detail and recommended
implementation of Samacheer Kalvi. The recommendations of the committee cannot
be easily ignored. Besides, while already incurring huge expenditure, is it
necessary to further expend more? The Advocate General should give proper
counsels to the government.”
When the
Tamil Nadu government went on further appeal to the Supreme Court against the
judgement of the Madras High Court, Justices P.S.Chowhan and Swanthira Kumar in
their order said, “Samacheer Kalvi brought for classes one and six last year
should be continued to be implemented. If it is stopped in between there will
be confusion. Samacheer Kalvi should also be implemented this year itself for
classes 2 to 5 and 7 to 10. If there were any shortcomings in that syllabi, a
committee of experts could be set up and that committee to file its report
within two weeks to the Madras High Court. Considering importance of this case
the High Court should hear it on day-to-day basis and deliver judgement within
a week.”
According
to this order ADMK government set up a committee of educationists. It was
widely held that only those who were opposed Samacheer Kalvi found place in
that committee. Without bothering all those things, the rulers prepared a
report through that committee itself and filed that report in the High Court.
The Chief Justice and another judge of the Madras High Court in their order
explained in detail about the report of the committee and said, “We have no
hesitation to hold that the State has exceeded in its powers in bringing the
Amending Act to postpone an enactment which has already come into force. Text
books required for other classes besides classes one and six had already been
printed and considerable amount of work have been completed. They have also
been uploaded on the website. At this stage bringing amendment to the Samacheer
Kalvi Act, would affect the interests of students. Hence the amendment brought
by Tamil Nadu government amending that Act is not valid. We hold them null and
void. The text books for Samacheer Kalvi should be immediately distributed to
the students. Hence in the interest of future of the students and the interest
of the country we hope the State government would immediately take action to
implement Samacheer Kalvi.”
Even after
this, without respecting the High Court order and ignoring the request of the
all parties in Tamil Nadu persuading the Tamil Nadu government not to go on
further appeal to the Supreme Court and implement the order of the High Court,
the Tamil Nadu government went to the Supreme Court.
The
Supreme Court in its interim report refused to give interim stay to the Madras
High Court order and told the government to distribute Samacheer Kalvi text
books before August 2. Even after five days of this order, the Tamil Nadu
government did not start the work of distributing text books to students. Instead the counsel for Tamil Nadu government
told the Supreme Court that there was no possibility for implementing Samacheer
Kalvi during this year itself; it was very clear that the Tamil Nadu government
was not at all bothered about the condition of the students of Tamil Nadu. Even
after 2 months of reopening of schools the students were not aware of the text
books that they were going to study during this year and the parents also were
agonized. As the Tamil Nadu government, unbothered about all these and not
respecting the orders of the courts and not heeding to the opinions of all
party leaders, was adamantly sticking on its stand.
Ultimately,
the Supreme Court on Aug. 9 directed the Tamil Nadu government to implement
Samacheer Kalvi for classes 2 to 5 and 7 to 10 in ten days.
A
three-Judge Bench of Justice J.M. Panchal, Justice Deepak Misra and Justice
B.S. Chauhan dismissed a batch of appeals filed by the Tamil Nadu government
and on behalf of association of matriculation schools in support of the State
challenging the Madras High Court judgment.
The Bench
upheld the High Court’s decision declaring unconstitutional the amendment made
to the Tamil Nadu Uniform System of School Education Act to defer
implementation of the USSE and gave 25 reasons why the impugned judgment should
be sustained. The judgement said:
“Students
can not be put to so much strain and stress unnecessarily. The entire exercise
by the Government is therefore arbitrary, discriminatory and oppressive to
students, teachers and parents.
The State
Government should have acted bearing in mind that “destiny of a nation rests
with its youths”. Personality of a child
is developed at the time of basic education during his formative years of life.
Their career should
not be left
in dolorific conditions
with uncertainty to such
a great extent. The younger generation
has to compete in global
market. Education is not a consumer
service nor the educational institution can be equated with shops, therefore,
“there are statutory prohibitions for establishing and administering
educational institution without prior permission or approval by the authority
concerned…
Thus, the
State Government could by no means be justified in amending the provisions of
Section 3 of the Act 2010, particularly in such uncertain terms.
Undertaking given by the learned
Advocate General to the High Court that the Act 2010 would be implemented
in the academic year 2012-13, cannot be
a good reason to hold the Act 2011 valid.
Submissions
advanced on behalf of the government that it is within the exclusive domain of
the legislature to fix the date of commencement of an Act, and court has no
competence to interfere in such a matter, is totally misconceived for the
reason that the legislature in its wisdom had fixed the dates of commencement
of the Act though in a phased manner. The Act commenced into force accordingly.
The courts intervened in the matter in peculiar circumstances and passed
certain orders in this regard also. The
legislature could not wash off the effect of those judgments at all…
So many
punches had landed on the ADMK government’s face that it now has no face at
all. The string of reverses that the Jaya regime has been suffering in courts
in recent times has to be seen to be believed. While the list looks endless,
the quashing of more than a dozen Goondas Act detention orders passed against
DMK functionaries too fell through rather tamely, despite the hype that
proceeded their arrests. “It is true advocates have a field day whenever the
ADMK captures power. But in my long experience I have not seen so many reverses
in such a short span”, said a senior advocate, who did not want to be quoted.
During her
earlier tenure too between 2001 and 2006, Jayalalitha regime triggered a
virtual avalanche of court cases when it took high voltage decisions such as
dismissal of 1.5 lakh government employees, ban on animal sacrifice in temples,
introducing Anti-conversion law, POTA detentions, attacks on journalists etc.,
Thus, as
Chief Ministers, Gujarat’s Narendra Modi and Tamil Nadu’s Jayalalitha stand out
among all Chief Ministers of all states at present and in the past since
independence – for being pulled up by higher courts repeatedly, and vying with
each other for the top slot in the maximum number of times for such
humiliations – a disgrace indeed to the great lands of Mahatma Gandhi, Thanthai
Periyar and Arignar Anna.
A news was
posted on December 1 last in the website www.namoleague.com of the fans of
Narendra Modi (Namo)’: A group of Tamil drama artists was in Ahmedabad and some
of the persons in that group were Modi-fans. They expressed interest in meeting
him and got appointment on the same day for a 30-minute chat at Modi’s
residence in Gandhi Nagar. One of them then quipped, “How nice it would be if
India had 28 Namo’s.” to which the man simply smiled (what a wild imagination).
When one of them told Namo that they had initially tried to get permission to
meet him through Cho in Chennai. Modi said, “Aah, Cho saab...woh toh mere
Guruji hain.” The same Cho is also now the Aasthana Guru of Poes Garden.
And this
Guruji, has now proposed either of his disciples, Narendra Modi or Jayalalitha,
both castigated by courts for their lawless regimes in states, for the post of
Prime Minister of India. What an audacity? Isn’t it an insult to the nation?
