Hotel case: Jaya not entitled to immunity, says Judge

CHENNAI, FEB 18: The criminal proceedings initiated against former chief minister J Jayalalitha and former Local Administration minister ...

CHENNAI, FEB 18: The criminal proceedings initiated against former chief minister J Jayalalitha and former Local Administration minister T M Selvaganapathy in the Pleasant Stay Hotel case are in no way related to anything said or any vote given in the Legislature, and hence, the two are not entitled to immunity from legal action, Special Judge-II V Radhakrishnan held today.

Dismissing a joint petition filed by the two seeking immunity under Article 194 of the Constitution, the judge said the prime accused, by corrupt or illegal means and by abusing their position as public servants, obtained pecuniary advantage for the hotel 8220;without any public interest8221;.

They issued a Government Order relaxing various rules and statutory norms to enable the construction of a seven-storied structure in Kodaikanal. Thus, they committed criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the judge held.

He added that as per the facts of the case, on the day the GO was issued, the offence of criminal misconductwas complete. Rules were relaxed for the construction of the building without any legal sanction. In fact, the GO has been quashed by the High Court and this decision was upheld by the Supreme Court.

Referring to the petitioners8217; contention that they cannot be hauled up in court for an act conducted inside the State Assembly, the judge observed that the offence was committed only outside the Legislature. The act of amending the District Municipalities Act empowering the Government to grant necessary exemption will not annul the offence committed outside the legislature, he held.

The GO has no nexus with the vote cast or speech made in the Legislature for passing the Amendment Act. The Supreme Court decision in the P V Narasimha Rao case cited in the petition is in no way helpful to the petitioner to claim immunity from legal sanction, the judge said.

Moreover, petitioners had unsuccessfully claimed immunity under Article 194 earlier in the discharge petition. The court then went ahead with framingcharges in the case and a revision against this order is pending in the High Court, the judge pointed out.