Centre notification: A foregone conclusion?

CHENNAI, Feb 8: It appears that the advocates defending former chief minister J Jayalalitha had an inclination last month itself of the C...

CHENNAI, Feb 8: It appears that the advocates defending former chief minister J Jayalalitha had an inclination last month itself of the Central Government8217;s move to issue a notification reallocating the 46 corruption cases involving her and some of her erstwhile Cabinet colleagues and bureaucrats to various Sessions judges.

One of Jayalalitha8217;s lawyers, N Jothi, during the proceedings of the TANSI land and office building case in the special court-III on January 27 had openly declared: 8220;The climax on the validity of the constitution of the special courts is over and we are marching towards its logical conclusion. Then there shall be nothing to rejoice for the prosecution or nothing to feel sad for the accused and we will bid farewell to each other.8221; He had then said that the 8220;notification8221; would be out very shortly and 8220;we shall vacate this court and go back to our work8221;. Not many had realised then that the notification referred by him was the one issued by the Union Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions.

Jothi confided to The Indian Express that it was the same notification he had referred to on that day. He added that 8220;the special courts are like the Titanic, they are sinking and none can save them8221;. However, he did not want too much to be read into the Gazette notification being released to the media by another of Jayalalitha8217;s counsel Jeenasenan. 8220;A Gazette is a public document and is available for sale. Someone who had bought it had sent it to the party office,8221; he said.

Meanwhile, special public prosecutor P Venkatasubramaniam, when asked for his reaction to the notification, said that 8220;it amounts to contempt of court.8221; He pointed out that the Centre had filed a petition in the Supreme Court last month, seeking permission to issue a notification under Section 4 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Even before the Court could decide, they had come up with a notification under the same provision.

He however, ruled out the possibility of cases being heard afresh by the Sessions judges, in case the notification is upheld. There are very few precedents for it. The only time in recent years the Supreme Court ordered fresh trial, was the case involving former Maharashtra Chief Minister A R Antulay and that too because the special judge involved in the case happened to be a judge of the High Court, he pointed out.

Former Union Minister Sedapatti R Muthiah merely said that the Centre had issued the notification by virtue of the powers enjoyed by it under the Prevention of Corruption Act. On the State Government8217;s move to challenge the notification in court, he quipped that it was contradictory that the State Government, which had issued a notification 8220;without any competence8221;, is questioning the competence of the Centre.