“All are equal in the eyes of law”- this is what
often we hear in the corridors of courts and public discourses. A law
abiding citizen of this country, imbued with this understanding of law
and justice, would have contemptuously rejected the following commentary
that appeared in an English daily as pessimistic.
“When laws are made in any country they are obviously meant to be followed by all the citizens of that country. If this is true that, all citizens must follow all laws then, the truth is also that, all the punishments assigned for specific crimes should also be the same for all. This is correctly stated but, the catch comes in the implementation of this truth.
A few statements abo one above the law? When we see things on the ground the picture is absolutely incorrect and absolutout law are so high sounding and convincing that no one can object to their truth. A very rosy picture of the laws of a country is that, all are the same in front of law, no one, yes, no one is above the law, and all criminals should be treated alike. All this seems very soothing to the ears and very fair too.
However, what is the truth on the ground, in reality. The question that arises is that, are really all people same in front of law, is no one yes, nely contrary to the tall claims. The ground realities reveal quite a different story, at least in India. On paper yes, all are equal before law, and no one is above law but facts are self contradictory.
Here, in India at least it appears that law deals with an individual only after seeing his/her face. If the face permits then the law is applied and if not, any law can be overlooked. The qualities for being favoured by law are money and influence. If the offender has money to buy the legal machinery, or he has a status in the highest echelons, then he is surely to be considered as being above law. If however, he has neither money to buy anyone, nor any influence then, yes then the law will see him through and he will be punished according to the laws of the land.
The qualities of money power and influence thus come to play a major role in deciding whether one is to be punished as per the law or to be left on some pretext. Only when the background of the culprit is well deciphered that, a decision is taken regarding the punishment to be meted out to him”.
But such law abiding citizens of Tamil Nadu are bemused. Already confused their confusion was further confounded by a recent notice of the Chief Election Commission, a Constitutional body, to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalitha. Rejecting her explanation to a notice issued by the Commission earlier on the violation of election rules during her by-election campaign in Yercaud, the CEC order on Dec 6 stated:
“…..Whereas, the Commission, after examining the complaint and having seen the CD of the said speech, found that the speech was in the nature of alluding to different social and infrastractural requirements, such as opening of new Health Centres, opening of new Primary School and College, augmenting further drinking water facility, opening of new Veterinary Centre, etc., for the area, which have been brought to her notice and finally she concluded with a promise of providing whatever is required for the development of the area, by the Government. The conjunctive reference to the requirements of the area as brought to her notice on one hand and assurance of meeting developmental requirements of the area by the Govt. on the other is, prima facie, found to be in the nature of making of promise to the electorate of poll bound constituency and hence a show-cause notice dated 2nd December,2013, was issued to her affording her an opportunity to submit her explanation for the alleged violation of provisions of the Model Code of Conduct was issued; and
Whereas, Ms J.Jayalalithaa submitted her explanation vide her letter dated 2nd December, 2013 and following points were mentioned:- …….
Whereas, the Commission has considered the points mentioned by Ms J. Jayalalithaa in her explanation and observed that she has admitted that in her speech she stated that “requirements for the development of Yercaud constituency have been brought to her notice” and as Chief Minister heading the State Government she made a “statement that whatever is required for the upliftment of the people in the area would be provided”; and
Whereas, it is also admitted that the impugned speech is in the course of election campaign and addressed to the voters in the constituency where bye-election is in progress; and
Whereas, it is also seen that she gave specific details of these new schemes in her speech which are detailed in para (2) above; and
Whereas, it is further seen in the video recording that audience present at the campaign speech cheered and welcomed the announcements, and that the specific schemes mentioned by her area-wise, in her speech, referred to in para (2) above, are not on the ground as on date and not part of on-going scheme as claimed by her and thus it is not mere surmise and suspicion but the stark facts mentioned above that necessitated the initiation of the action against her for violation of Model Code of Conduct; and
Whereas, the Commission is thus of the considered view that the conjunctive reference to the specific new schemes required in this area on one hand followed by assurance to do whatever is required for the upliftment of the area on the other hand tantamounts to announcement of new schemes for the electorate of Yercaud Assembly Constituency and hence constitutes violation of sub para (vi) of para “VII-Party in Power”, of the Model Code of Conduct, which, inter alia, states that “From the time elections are announced by the Commission, Ministers and other Authorities shall not-(a) announce any financial grants in any form or promises thereof;…… or (c) make any promise of construction of roads, provision of drinking water facilities etc; which may have the effect of influencing the voters in favour of the party in power”; and
Whereas, the Model Code of Conduct endeavours “to ensure level playing field between the contesting parties and candidates in election and also in order to see that the purity of the election process does not get vitiated” [see Honourable Supreme Court in judgment dated
05-07-2013 in SLP(C) No.21453of 2008 & TC No. 112 of 2011 – Subramanian Balaji versus Govt. of Tamil Nadu and others]; and, therefore, all political parties, and more so its prominent leaders, are expected to scrupulously follow the Model Code of Conduct, in letter and spirit, and not resort to any subterfuge to circumvent the provisions of Model Code of Conduct.
Now, therefore, the Commission rejects the contention made in the reply of Ms. J. Jayalalithaa and has decided to advise her to be careful in future and not make such announcements of new schemes for electorate with a view to alluring them”.
And, this is not the first time that Jayalalitha has been pulled up the Election Commission but left scot free with just a ‘caution to be careful in future’ as though she is very sensitive and take it seriously and abide by it. Kalaignar has extensively quoted about malpractices and violations of election rules during by-elections in 2003, when she brought disrepute to Tamil Nadu as the Election Commission Secretary K.J.Rao, after touring constituencies in which by-polls were conducted “returned to the Capital and in his report submitted to the Commission observed that large scale rigging and malpractices had been done in the revision of rolls”. The then Chief Election Commissioner J.M.Lyngdoh, in a press meet, observed that “Three States in India have become notorious for booth capturing and malpractices- Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu”. Just like now the CEC wrote to Jayalalitha, it wrote to the Chief Secretary then rejecting his explanation on behalf of her and similarly cautioned her to be careful in future.
These two incidents of reprimands by the CEC for offences committed by her are enough to show that she is a habitual offender as for as elections and Election Commission are concerned. There are a set of laws for punishing habitual offenders but they were not applied in her case.
The judgment of the Supreme Court in the TANSI land case was high sounding on Code of Conduct and stated, “At any rate, it is plain that such conduct is opposed to the spirit of the Code of Conduct if not its letter. Morally speaking, can there be one law for small officials of the Government and another law for the Chief Minister? In matters of such nature, is the Code of Conduct meant only to be kept as an `ornamental relic’ in a museum but not to be practiced? These aspects do worry our conscience. Respondent No.1 (Jayalalitha) in her anxiety to save her skin went to any length even to deny her signature on documents which her auditor and other Government officials identified”
“Report leading to IPC makes it clear that criminal law merely prescribes the minimum standards of behaviour, while in public life, those who hold high offices should not take shelter under the umbrella of criminal law but stand by high probity. Further, criminal law is meant to deal with criminals ordinarily, while Code of Conduct is observed as gentlemen’s agreement. Persons in public life, who are gentlemen, follow such Code instead of taking escape routes by resorting to technical pleas as arise in criminal cases. Persons in public life are expected to maintain very high standards of probity, and particularly, when there is likely to be even least bit of conflict of interest between the office one holds and the acts to be done by such person, ought to desist himself from indulging in the same. Such standards of behaviour were scrupulously observed in the earlier days after independence, but those values how now dwindled and instances of persons holding high elective offices indulging in self-aggrandisement by utilizing Government property or in distribution of the largesse of the Government to their own favourties or for certain quid pro quo are on the increase. We have to strongly condemn such actions. Good ethical behaviour on the part of those who are in power is the hallmark of a good administration and people in public life must perform their duties in a spirit of public service rather than by assuming power to indulge in callous cupidity regardless of self imposed discipline”.
After so much sermonising, the Supreme Court, at last said in the judgment, “Irrespective of the fact whether we reach the conclusion that A-1 (Jayalalitha) is guilty of the offences with which she is charged or not, she must atone for the same 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 in breaching the spirit of the Code of Conduct and giving rise to suspicion that rules and procedures were bent to acquire the public property for personal benefit, though trite to say that suspicion however strong cannot take place of legal proof in a criminal case and take steps to expiate herself”.
The common man wonders whether returning a property illegally/unethically acquired and ‘atoning the same by answering conscience’ will absolve the person of the offence committed, if so whether it will apply to all citizens of the country for such and other offences/crimes? Will the courts passively allow an accused to ‘go to any length to save his skin’ and deny his own signature and give false statements?
Jayalalitha repeatedly states in the courts and outside that the cases against her a false; it is so, it must be very easy for her to straightaway face them and break them. Instead her tactics of prolonging trials by adopting all dilatory methods established that those cases are genuine.
The Disproportionate Assets case against Jayalalitha, which had been dragging for nearly 17 years due to her dilatory tactics, was on the verge of coming to an end at the Special Court in Bangalore, when in an unprecedented move. the accused moved the Supreme Court for the retention of the judge who was due to retire and the Special Public Prosecutor who had to argue the case against her. The apex court also surprisingly yielded to all her demands and served notices to Karnataka government. Even after the retiring judge expressing his unwillingness to continue and the Karnataka government said the services of Balakrishna, who was conducting the trial, could not be extended beyond September 30, the date of his superannuation as he expressed his unwillingness to continue in service. It said the Supreme Court had passed the order on September 30 requesting the Karnataka High Court to consider extending the services of Balakrishna. On the same day Balakrishna had addressed a letter to the Registrar General of the High Court stating that he could not continue to work as special judge for personal reasons and requested that he might be relieved from the charge of his post on September 30 itself. Accordingly he was relieved.
The State said on October 1 orders were obtained from the High Court for provisionally appointing Mudigoudar as the Presiding Officer to take charge and the notification was issued on October 3. On October 9, the High Court on its Administrative Committee held a meeting and it was resolved to refer the matter to the Full Court with regard to posting of an officer in the cadre of District Judge to succeed Balakrishna.
In view of the unwillingness of Balakrishna to continue, the Full Court at its meeting on October 28 asked the Administrative committee to post a regular Presiding Officer and on October 29 the committee resolved to appoint John Michael Cunha as the special judge to conduct the trial of the DA cases. The notification was issued on October 31 and Cunha assumed charge as the Presiding Officer on November 7, the State said and sought dismissal of the petition filed by Jayalalitha and others.
But even after this submission of the Karnataka government of having complied with and faithfully carried out the directives of the Court, surprisingly the Supreme Court on Nov 19 granted two weeks time to Jayalalitha and three other accused to file their response to the Karnataka government’s stand that the services of special judge M.S. Balakrishna could not be extended beyond September 30, when he retired, in view of his unwillingness to continue.
A bench of Justices B.S. Chauhan and S.A. Bobde, after hearing senior counsel Shekar Naphade, granted time on the writ petition filed by them challenging the notification issued by the Karnataka government appointing G.B. Mudigoudar to conduct the disproportionate assets cases against them in a Bangalore court from October 1. Counsel Anita Shenoy, appearing for the State said nothing survived in the petition as the order had been complied with. The bench, however, granted time and posted the matter for further hearing after two weeks, even as the duly appointed Special judge John Michael Cunha has started the proceedings in the Special Court. But now with the lapse of two weeks, Jayalalitha does not seem to have filed her counter!
Why this extraordinary leniency is shown for a litigant who was pulled up by the same court several times in the past for prolonging the trial in the case, is the question in the minds of people now.
Similarly in the Gifts case file by the CBI against her, the Supreme Court on Nov 19 granted last opportunity to Jayalalitha to file her response to a special leave petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation challenging a Madras High Court judgment setting aside the ‘three lakh US dollars case’ against her on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay in the investigation and trial stage.
A Bench of Justices S.S. Nijjar and Ibrahim Kalifulla posted the matter for final disposal on the available date in January or February next. The Additional Solicitor General, Siddharth Luthra, told the court that notice was issued in February last year (2012) and reply was yet to be filed by respondent 1 ( Jayalalitya) and respondent 2 (K.A. Sengottaiyan) and he said every time adjournment was being sought. The Bench made it clear that pleadings would have to be completed before the final hearing, which would take place even if response was not filed.
The CBI had filed an appeal against the impugned judgment dated September 30, 2011 on the petition filed by Jayalalitha praying for quashing the FIR. The CBI’s allegation against her was that while she was functioning as Chief Minister during her first tenure between 1991 and 1996, she accepted 89 demand drafts worth Rs. 2,00,00,012 drawn in her favour from various banks in Tamil Nadu in the names of 57 persons on the occasion of her birthday in 1992 and received Rs. 15 lakh in cash, totalling Rs. 2,15,00,012 and disclosed the same in her income tax returns as gifts. She also received remittance of US dollars three lakh by way of demand draft dated December 23, 1991, issued by Bankers Trust Company, New York, drawn on ANZ Grindlays Bank, St.Halia, Jersey. The CBI said the investigation revealed that there was no evidence in respect of the first offence and investigation continued regarding the receipt of three lakh US dollars.( As per the Code of Conduct, Jayalalitha should have deposited the money in government treasury. But she credited them in her personal account, which itself was violation of the Code of Conduct)
Acting on a petition from Jayalalitha that there was inordinate delay in the investigation and trial, the High Court quashed the proceedings. The proceedings could not be quashed merely on the ground of delay, the CBI said and prayed for quashing the judgment.
Compared to the alacrity shown by the courts and other Constitutional institutions like the Election Commission in cases against persons in high offices, the seeming leniency and laxity in cases against Jayalalitha baffles law abiding citizens of the country!
“When laws are made in any country they are obviously meant to be followed by all the citizens of that country. If this is true that, all citizens must follow all laws then, the truth is also that, all the punishments assigned for specific crimes should also be the same for all. This is correctly stated but, the catch comes in the implementation of this truth.
A few statements abo one above the law? When we see things on the ground the picture is absolutely incorrect and absolutout law are so high sounding and convincing that no one can object to their truth. A very rosy picture of the laws of a country is that, all are the same in front of law, no one, yes, no one is above the law, and all criminals should be treated alike. All this seems very soothing to the ears and very fair too.
However, what is the truth on the ground, in reality. The question that arises is that, are really all people same in front of law, is no one yes, nely contrary to the tall claims. The ground realities reveal quite a different story, at least in India. On paper yes, all are equal before law, and no one is above law but facts are self contradictory.
Here, in India at least it appears that law deals with an individual only after seeing his/her face. If the face permits then the law is applied and if not, any law can be overlooked. The qualities for being favoured by law are money and influence. If the offender has money to buy the legal machinery, or he has a status in the highest echelons, then he is surely to be considered as being above law. If however, he has neither money to buy anyone, nor any influence then, yes then the law will see him through and he will be punished according to the laws of the land.
The qualities of money power and influence thus come to play a major role in deciding whether one is to be punished as per the law or to be left on some pretext. Only when the background of the culprit is well deciphered that, a decision is taken regarding the punishment to be meted out to him”.
But such law abiding citizens of Tamil Nadu are bemused. Already confused their confusion was further confounded by a recent notice of the Chief Election Commission, a Constitutional body, to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalitha. Rejecting her explanation to a notice issued by the Commission earlier on the violation of election rules during her by-election campaign in Yercaud, the CEC order on Dec 6 stated:
“…..Whereas, the Commission, after examining the complaint and having seen the CD of the said speech, found that the speech was in the nature of alluding to different social and infrastractural requirements, such as opening of new Health Centres, opening of new Primary School and College, augmenting further drinking water facility, opening of new Veterinary Centre, etc., for the area, which have been brought to her notice and finally she concluded with a promise of providing whatever is required for the development of the area, by the Government. The conjunctive reference to the requirements of the area as brought to her notice on one hand and assurance of meeting developmental requirements of the area by the Govt. on the other is, prima facie, found to be in the nature of making of promise to the electorate of poll bound constituency and hence a show-cause notice dated 2nd December,2013, was issued to her affording her an opportunity to submit her explanation for the alleged violation of provisions of the Model Code of Conduct was issued; and
Whereas, Ms J.Jayalalithaa submitted her explanation vide her letter dated 2nd December, 2013 and following points were mentioned:- …….
Whereas, the Commission has considered the points mentioned by Ms J. Jayalalithaa in her explanation and observed that she has admitted that in her speech she stated that “requirements for the development of Yercaud constituency have been brought to her notice” and as Chief Minister heading the State Government she made a “statement that whatever is required for the upliftment of the people in the area would be provided”; and
Whereas, it is also admitted that the impugned speech is in the course of election campaign and addressed to the voters in the constituency where bye-election is in progress; and
Whereas, it is also seen that she gave specific details of these new schemes in her speech which are detailed in para (2) above; and
Whereas, it is further seen in the video recording that audience present at the campaign speech cheered and welcomed the announcements, and that the specific schemes mentioned by her area-wise, in her speech, referred to in para (2) above, are not on the ground as on date and not part of on-going scheme as claimed by her and thus it is not mere surmise and suspicion but the stark facts mentioned above that necessitated the initiation of the action against her for violation of Model Code of Conduct; and
Whereas, the Commission is thus of the considered view that the conjunctive reference to the specific new schemes required in this area on one hand followed by assurance to do whatever is required for the upliftment of the area on the other hand tantamounts to announcement of new schemes for the electorate of Yercaud Assembly Constituency and hence constitutes violation of sub para (vi) of para “VII-Party in Power”, of the Model Code of Conduct, which, inter alia, states that “From the time elections are announced by the Commission, Ministers and other Authorities shall not-(a) announce any financial grants in any form or promises thereof;…… or (c) make any promise of construction of roads, provision of drinking water facilities etc; which may have the effect of influencing the voters in favour of the party in power”; and
Whereas, the Model Code of Conduct endeavours “to ensure level playing field between the contesting parties and candidates in election and also in order to see that the purity of the election process does not get vitiated” [see Honourable Supreme Court in judgment dated
05-07-2013 in SLP(C) No.21453of 2008 & TC No. 112 of 2011 – Subramanian Balaji versus Govt. of Tamil Nadu and others]; and, therefore, all political parties, and more so its prominent leaders, are expected to scrupulously follow the Model Code of Conduct, in letter and spirit, and not resort to any subterfuge to circumvent the provisions of Model Code of Conduct.
Now, therefore, the Commission rejects the contention made in the reply of Ms. J. Jayalalithaa and has decided to advise her to be careful in future and not make such announcements of new schemes for electorate with a view to alluring them”.
And, this is not the first time that Jayalalitha has been pulled up the Election Commission but left scot free with just a ‘caution to be careful in future’ as though she is very sensitive and take it seriously and abide by it. Kalaignar has extensively quoted about malpractices and violations of election rules during by-elections in 2003, when she brought disrepute to Tamil Nadu as the Election Commission Secretary K.J.Rao, after touring constituencies in which by-polls were conducted “returned to the Capital and in his report submitted to the Commission observed that large scale rigging and malpractices had been done in the revision of rolls”. The then Chief Election Commissioner J.M.Lyngdoh, in a press meet, observed that “Three States in India have become notorious for booth capturing and malpractices- Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu”. Just like now the CEC wrote to Jayalalitha, it wrote to the Chief Secretary then rejecting his explanation on behalf of her and similarly cautioned her to be careful in future.
These two incidents of reprimands by the CEC for offences committed by her are enough to show that she is a habitual offender as for as elections and Election Commission are concerned. There are a set of laws for punishing habitual offenders but they were not applied in her case.
The judgment of the Supreme Court in the TANSI land case was high sounding on Code of Conduct and stated, “At any rate, it is plain that such conduct is opposed to the spirit of the Code of Conduct if not its letter. Morally speaking, can there be one law for small officials of the Government and another law for the Chief Minister? In matters of such nature, is the Code of Conduct meant only to be kept as an `ornamental relic’ in a museum but not to be practiced? These aspects do worry our conscience. Respondent No.1 (Jayalalitha) in her anxiety to save her skin went to any length even to deny her signature on documents which her auditor and other Government officials identified”
“Report leading to IPC makes it clear that criminal law merely prescribes the minimum standards of behaviour, while in public life, those who hold high offices should not take shelter under the umbrella of criminal law but stand by high probity. Further, criminal law is meant to deal with criminals ordinarily, while Code of Conduct is observed as gentlemen’s agreement. Persons in public life, who are gentlemen, follow such Code instead of taking escape routes by resorting to technical pleas as arise in criminal cases. Persons in public life are expected to maintain very high standards of probity, and particularly, when there is likely to be even least bit of conflict of interest between the office one holds and the acts to be done by such person, ought to desist himself from indulging in the same. Such standards of behaviour were scrupulously observed in the earlier days after independence, but those values how now dwindled and instances of persons holding high elective offices indulging in self-aggrandisement by utilizing Government property or in distribution of the largesse of the Government to their own favourties or for certain quid pro quo are on the increase. We have to strongly condemn such actions. Good ethical behaviour on the part of those who are in power is the hallmark of a good administration and people in public life must perform their duties in a spirit of public service rather than by assuming power to indulge in callous cupidity regardless of self imposed discipline”.
After so much sermonising, the Supreme Court, at last said in the judgment, “Irrespective of the fact whether we reach the conclusion that A-1 (Jayalalitha) is guilty of the offences with which she is charged or not, she must atone for the same 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 in breaching the spirit of the Code of Conduct and giving rise to suspicion that rules and procedures were bent to acquire the public property for personal benefit, though trite to say that suspicion however strong cannot take place of legal proof in a criminal case and take steps to expiate herself”.
The common man wonders whether returning a property illegally/unethically acquired and ‘atoning the same by answering conscience’ will absolve the person of the offence committed, if so whether it will apply to all citizens of the country for such and other offences/crimes? Will the courts passively allow an accused to ‘go to any length to save his skin’ and deny his own signature and give false statements?
Jayalalitha repeatedly states in the courts and outside that the cases against her a false; it is so, it must be very easy for her to straightaway face them and break them. Instead her tactics of prolonging trials by adopting all dilatory methods established that those cases are genuine.
The Disproportionate Assets case against Jayalalitha, which had been dragging for nearly 17 years due to her dilatory tactics, was on the verge of coming to an end at the Special Court in Bangalore, when in an unprecedented move. the accused moved the Supreme Court for the retention of the judge who was due to retire and the Special Public Prosecutor who had to argue the case against her. The apex court also surprisingly yielded to all her demands and served notices to Karnataka government. Even after the retiring judge expressing his unwillingness to continue and the Karnataka government said the services of Balakrishna, who was conducting the trial, could not be extended beyond September 30, the date of his superannuation as he expressed his unwillingness to continue in service. It said the Supreme Court had passed the order on September 30 requesting the Karnataka High Court to consider extending the services of Balakrishna. On the same day Balakrishna had addressed a letter to the Registrar General of the High Court stating that he could not continue to work as special judge for personal reasons and requested that he might be relieved from the charge of his post on September 30 itself. Accordingly he was relieved.
The State said on October 1 orders were obtained from the High Court for provisionally appointing Mudigoudar as the Presiding Officer to take charge and the notification was issued on October 3. On October 9, the High Court on its Administrative Committee held a meeting and it was resolved to refer the matter to the Full Court with regard to posting of an officer in the cadre of District Judge to succeed Balakrishna.
In view of the unwillingness of Balakrishna to continue, the Full Court at its meeting on October 28 asked the Administrative committee to post a regular Presiding Officer and on October 29 the committee resolved to appoint John Michael Cunha as the special judge to conduct the trial of the DA cases. The notification was issued on October 31 and Cunha assumed charge as the Presiding Officer on November 7, the State said and sought dismissal of the petition filed by Jayalalitha and others.
But even after this submission of the Karnataka government of having complied with and faithfully carried out the directives of the Court, surprisingly the Supreme Court on Nov 19 granted two weeks time to Jayalalitha and three other accused to file their response to the Karnataka government’s stand that the services of special judge M.S. Balakrishna could not be extended beyond September 30, when he retired, in view of his unwillingness to continue.
A bench of Justices B.S. Chauhan and S.A. Bobde, after hearing senior counsel Shekar Naphade, granted time on the writ petition filed by them challenging the notification issued by the Karnataka government appointing G.B. Mudigoudar to conduct the disproportionate assets cases against them in a Bangalore court from October 1. Counsel Anita Shenoy, appearing for the State said nothing survived in the petition as the order had been complied with. The bench, however, granted time and posted the matter for further hearing after two weeks, even as the duly appointed Special judge John Michael Cunha has started the proceedings in the Special Court. But now with the lapse of two weeks, Jayalalitha does not seem to have filed her counter!
Why this extraordinary leniency is shown for a litigant who was pulled up by the same court several times in the past for prolonging the trial in the case, is the question in the minds of people now.
Similarly in the Gifts case file by the CBI against her, the Supreme Court on Nov 19 granted last opportunity to Jayalalitha to file her response to a special leave petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation challenging a Madras High Court judgment setting aside the ‘three lakh US dollars case’ against her on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay in the investigation and trial stage.
A Bench of Justices S.S. Nijjar and Ibrahim Kalifulla posted the matter for final disposal on the available date in January or February next. The Additional Solicitor General, Siddharth Luthra, told the court that notice was issued in February last year (2012) and reply was yet to be filed by respondent 1 ( Jayalalitya) and respondent 2 (K.A. Sengottaiyan) and he said every time adjournment was being sought. The Bench made it clear that pleadings would have to be completed before the final hearing, which would take place even if response was not filed.
The CBI had filed an appeal against the impugned judgment dated September 30, 2011 on the petition filed by Jayalalitha praying for quashing the FIR. The CBI’s allegation against her was that while she was functioning as Chief Minister during her first tenure between 1991 and 1996, she accepted 89 demand drafts worth Rs. 2,00,00,012 drawn in her favour from various banks in Tamil Nadu in the names of 57 persons on the occasion of her birthday in 1992 and received Rs. 15 lakh in cash, totalling Rs. 2,15,00,012 and disclosed the same in her income tax returns as gifts. She also received remittance of US dollars three lakh by way of demand draft dated December 23, 1991, issued by Bankers Trust Company, New York, drawn on ANZ Grindlays Bank, St.Halia, Jersey. The CBI said the investigation revealed that there was no evidence in respect of the first offence and investigation continued regarding the receipt of three lakh US dollars.( As per the Code of Conduct, Jayalalitha should have deposited the money in government treasury. But she credited them in her personal account, which itself was violation of the Code of Conduct)
Acting on a petition from Jayalalitha that there was inordinate delay in the investigation and trial, the High Court quashed the proceedings. The proceedings could not be quashed merely on the ground of delay, the CBI said and prayed for quashing the judgment.
Compared to the alacrity shown by the courts and other Constitutional institutions like the Election Commission in cases against persons in high offices, the seeming leniency and laxity in cases against Jayalalitha baffles law abiding citizens of the country!
No comments:
Post a Comment