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