Centre’s notification to prevail in Jaya cases — AG

NEW DELHI, MARCH 24: The Centre today submitted in the Supreme Court that it had the sole power to allocate cases under the Prevention of...

NEW DELHI, MARCH 24: The Centre today submitted in the Supreme Court that it had the sole power to allocate cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act adding its notification transferring cases against AIADMK chief Jayalalitha from three Chennai special judges would prevail over the Tamil Nadu notification.

Attorney General Soli Sorabjee contended before a division bench comprising Justices G T Nanavati and S P Kurdukar that as the Centre had "lawfully" exercised its power to allocate cases under Section 4 (2) of the Act, the court could not find fault with it even if "the result may appear to be a little unseemly".

Concluding his arguments in defence of the Centre’s February 5 notification, Sorabjee said as there was more than one special judge with area jurisdiction at Chennai, the Centre had the exclusive power of allocation which the State Government had usurped under the guise of grouping the cases.

Story continues below this ad

Tamil Nadu Government by its April 30, 1997 notification had appointed three special judges to try a group of 46 cases against Jayalalitha, some of her Cabinet colleagues and bureaucrats.

Sorabjee said the state Government had merely enumerated the cases and not grouped them on any basis, and added that the Centre’s notification has grouped the cases before various special judges, on the basis of stages of investigation.

Arguments on the Centre’s power to issue the notification concluded but the hearing on Jayalalitha’s petition challenging the State’s notification would continue next Wednesday.

Sorabjee sought to allay State Government apprehensions that the Centre’s notification would delay the ongoing trial, by saying that there has been an express provision in the act for speedy trial. He added that the court could issue the appropriate direction in this regard.

Story continues below this ad

Beginning arguments on Jayalalitha’s petition challenging the validity of the April 30 notification, senior advocate K K Venugopal submitted that the grouping of cases against the AIADMK leader had no basis.

He said on the date of issuance of the notification, chargesheets were filed only in seven out of the 46 cases, and hence, all the matters had not "matured as cases to be grouped together" for trial.

He said the three courts of special judges were created in Chennai having area jurisdiction only over the city and wondered how the State Government could assign them cases arising from different areas like Kanyakumari, Dindigul and Madurai.

However, the bench pointed out that the notification prima facie appeared to have constituted the courts of special judges with the intention of trying the group of cases irrespective of area. The judges asked the counsel how he got the impression that these courts were created for Chennai.