As if she is an epitome of virtues, Jayalalitha has no moral compunctions in hurling charges on everybody else and demand their resignation or sacking based on hearsay even when neither she nor her regime had so far had denied any of the allegations of corruption, nepotism and irregularities pointed out by the media and the opposition parties, leave alone her bête noire Kalaignar and the DMK, except filing defamation cases against her opponents in some instances, all such of which during her past regimes never reached the logical and legal end. Defamation cases are only instruments of threat and harassment for her.
The latest of her target for demanding resignation or sacking is Union Minister for Fertilisers and Chemicals Thiru M.K.Alagiri. Competing with other news channels for TRP rating, the English news channel Headlines Today broadcast a report on January 23 claiming to have ‘unearthed’ a ‘fetiliser scam’ of Rs.1,000 crore loss for the government exchequer which was gained by some fertilizer manufacturing companies. Their ‘story’ was based on a note supposed to have been put up by the Minister of State for Fertilisers and Chemicals Srikant Kumar Jena. However for obvious reasons, may be unreliability of the channel or competitiveness, none of the other news channels and newspapers in the country, except Jayalalitha owned ‘Jaya TV’ channel broadcast or published this ‘story’.
But, unlike the ADMK regime, the responsive and responsible UPA government reacted to the ‘story’ of the reclusive channel immediately and on the same evening (January23) Minister of State for Chemicals and Fertilisers, Thiru. Srikant Kumar Jena issued a statement denying the innuendo made out by the channel and the release might have reached all media houses as suggested by their not repeating it in their channels and dailies.
The statement was as follows:
Following is the text of the statement issued by Minister of State for Chemicals & Fertilizers, Shri Srikant Kumar Jena here today:
“Various routine internal notes were issued by Minister of State (Chemicals & Fertilizers) to Secretary (Fertilizers) providing guidance on issues like availability of Fertilizers, reasonability of prices of Fertilizers, subsidy payout etc. The Department of Fertilizer regularly discusses these issues from time to time and the Department has informed that the concerns raised were adequately addressed. The reports which have come in some news channels and print media are based on routine administrative notes and without any verification of facts.”
However, this fiasco of the story of the channel was more than enough for Jayalalitha to immediately issue a statement on January 24 demanding the sacking of Thiru M.K.Alagiri from the Union Cabinet for the ‘alleged fertilizer scam of Rs.1,000 crore’. The dailies and news channels, which ignored the original story of Headlines Today channel after the denial by the Minister concerned, chose to publish her statement prominently. They again did a disservice to their readers and viewers and threw to wind the ethics of journalism by not mentioning the explanation offered by the Minister whom Jayalalitha had quoted as source for her charge.
What is the nature of the Disproportionate Assets case against Jayalalitha filed in 1997? The Hindu on Jan.29 published following report?
“The trial of the 16-year-old disproportionate assets case against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalitha is likely to be delayed further as the post of Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) has now fallen vacant with “sudden” acceptance of resignation of B.V. Acharya, who had put in his papers five months ago. Acharya had submitted his resignation to the Karnataka government on August 13, 2012 stating that he had suffered at hands of “interested parties” who wanted him to quit long ago, and the State government had forwarded his resignation to the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, on whose consent he was appointed in February 2004. However, the then Chief Justice Vikramajit Sen did not give his consent for the resignation and the papers remained in the office of the Chief Justice since August 2012, pointed out sources in the Law Department. Meanwhile, Chief Justice 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. Within a few days after assuming office, acting Chief Justice 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.
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. 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. Due to sudden creation of vacancy in the post of SPP, the proceedings in the case before the Special Court here are likely to be impacted. 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 to 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 is appointed within next few days, it will 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.”
Vexed with the delaying tactics of Jayalalitha the Special Public Prosecutor B.V.Acharya spoke to the Press while tendering his resignation in August last year: B.V. Acharya, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) in the disproportionate assets case against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalitha, on August 14 resigned from the post, 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 this year, alleging that the BJP government in Karnataka was “pressuring” him to quit the post of SPP. When contacted, Acharya 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..., ” 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 against him was motivated, and was an attempt to humiliate and coerce Acharya to quit his post as SPP.
Sources close to him said the 78-year-old 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 the defence. Acharya is also said to have stated in the resignation 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 regularly before the High Court as well as the Supreme Court.
Thus, Jayalalitha had been adopting all sorts of delaying tactics like challenging every step of the trial court at every stage and going on appeals to High Court and Supreme Court and creating a Guinness record by seeking more than 130 adjournments in the Bangalore Special court alone since 2004, and prolonged the case for about 16 years till now. The courts had pulled and censured her time and again, but she has developed a thick skin.
In between she returned to power twice in 2001 and 2011 and on both occasions misused her office for ordering reinvestigation of the case by the DVAC intended to dilute and close the case. But the higher courts rejected and quashed her moves. She used her political connection with the BJP to bring pressure on Special Public Prosecutor B.V.Acharya to quit, through the BJP government in Karnataka.
None of these actions of Jayalalitha show her honesty or integrity. Even uninformed laymen could understand that she is guilty and afraid of facing the case honestly and come out clean.
Jayalalitha is the only Chief Minister in India to be removed from power by the Supreme Court. If at all she had had even a modicum of honesty, she should have quit public life, when the Supreme Court in the TANSI case directed her, “... she must atone for the same (offence) by answering her conscience in the light of what we have stated not only by returning the property to TANSI unconditionally but also ponder over whether she had done the right thing.”
So, Madam, face the Disproportionate Assets case right earnestly and establish your honesty and integrity before you point fingers at others. r
The latest of her target for demanding resignation or sacking is Union Minister for Fertilisers and Chemicals Thiru M.K.Alagiri. Competing with other news channels for TRP rating, the English news channel Headlines Today broadcast a report on January 23 claiming to have ‘unearthed’ a ‘fetiliser scam’ of Rs.1,000 crore loss for the government exchequer which was gained by some fertilizer manufacturing companies. Their ‘story’ was based on a note supposed to have been put up by the Minister of State for Fertilisers and Chemicals Srikant Kumar Jena. However for obvious reasons, may be unreliability of the channel or competitiveness, none of the other news channels and newspapers in the country, except Jayalalitha owned ‘Jaya TV’ channel broadcast or published this ‘story’.
But, unlike the ADMK regime, the responsive and responsible UPA government reacted to the ‘story’ of the reclusive channel immediately and on the same evening (January23) Minister of State for Chemicals and Fertilisers, Thiru. Srikant Kumar Jena issued a statement denying the innuendo made out by the channel and the release might have reached all media houses as suggested by their not repeating it in their channels and dailies.
The statement was as follows:
Following is the text of the statement issued by Minister of State for Chemicals & Fertilizers, Shri Srikant Kumar Jena here today:
“Various routine internal notes were issued by Minister of State (Chemicals & Fertilizers) to Secretary (Fertilizers) providing guidance on issues like availability of Fertilizers, reasonability of prices of Fertilizers, subsidy payout etc. The Department of Fertilizer regularly discusses these issues from time to time and the Department has informed that the concerns raised were adequately addressed. The reports which have come in some news channels and print media are based on routine administrative notes and without any verification of facts.”
However, this fiasco of the story of the channel was more than enough for Jayalalitha to immediately issue a statement on January 24 demanding the sacking of Thiru M.K.Alagiri from the Union Cabinet for the ‘alleged fertilizer scam of Rs.1,000 crore’. The dailies and news channels, which ignored the original story of Headlines Today channel after the denial by the Minister concerned, chose to publish her statement prominently. They again did a disservice to their readers and viewers and threw to wind the ethics of journalism by not mentioning the explanation offered by the Minister whom Jayalalitha had quoted as source for her charge.
What is the nature of the Disproportionate Assets case against Jayalalitha filed in 1997? The Hindu on Jan.29 published following report?
“The trial of the 16-year-old disproportionate assets case against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalitha is likely to be delayed further as the post of Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) has now fallen vacant with “sudden” acceptance of resignation of B.V. Acharya, who had put in his papers five months ago. Acharya had submitted his resignation to the Karnataka government on August 13, 2012 stating that he had suffered at hands of “interested parties” who wanted him to quit long ago, and the State government had forwarded his resignation to the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, on whose consent he was appointed in February 2004. However, the then Chief Justice Vikramajit Sen did not give his consent for the resignation and the papers remained in the office of the Chief Justice since August 2012, pointed out sources in the Law Department. Meanwhile, Chief Justice 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. Within a few days after assuming office, acting Chief Justice 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.
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. 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. Due to sudden creation of vacancy in the post of SPP, the proceedings in the case before the Special Court here are likely to be impacted. 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 to 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 is appointed within next few days, it will 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.”
Vexed with the delaying tactics of Jayalalitha the Special Public Prosecutor B.V.Acharya spoke to the Press while tendering his resignation in August last year: B.V. Acharya, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) in the disproportionate assets case against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalitha, on August 14 resigned from the post, 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 this year, alleging that the BJP government in Karnataka was “pressuring” him to quit the post of SPP. When contacted, Acharya 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..., ” 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 against him was motivated, and was an attempt to humiliate and coerce Acharya to quit his post as SPP.
Sources close to him said the 78-year-old 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 the defence. Acharya is also said to have stated in the resignation 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 regularly before the High Court as well as the Supreme Court.
Thus, Jayalalitha had been adopting all sorts of delaying tactics like challenging every step of the trial court at every stage and going on appeals to High Court and Supreme Court and creating a Guinness record by seeking more than 130 adjournments in the Bangalore Special court alone since 2004, and prolonged the case for about 16 years till now. The courts had pulled and censured her time and again, but she has developed a thick skin.
In between she returned to power twice in 2001 and 2011 and on both occasions misused her office for ordering reinvestigation of the case by the DVAC intended to dilute and close the case. But the higher courts rejected and quashed her moves. She used her political connection with the BJP to bring pressure on Special Public Prosecutor B.V.Acharya to quit, through the BJP government in Karnataka.
None of these actions of Jayalalitha show her honesty or integrity. Even uninformed laymen could understand that she is guilty and afraid of facing the case honestly and come out clean.
Jayalalitha is the only Chief Minister in India to be removed from power by the Supreme Court. If at all she had had even a modicum of honesty, she should have quit public life, when the Supreme Court in the TANSI case directed her, “... she must atone for the same (offence) by answering her conscience in the light of what we have stated not only by returning the property to TANSI unconditionally but also ponder over whether she had done the right thing.”
So, Madam, face the Disproportionate Assets case right earnestly and establish your honesty and integrity before you point fingers at others. r
No comments:
Post a Comment