Jaya cases: SC admits TN plea against Centre8217;s notification

Counsel for the Advocate General, Fali S Nariman said the Centre8217;s February 5 notification did not affect the state government8217;s April 30, 1997, order appointing three special judges to exclusively try 46 corruption cases against Jayalalitha, some of her erstwhile Cabinet colleagues and certain bureaucrats as the latter was done with the consent of the Madras High Court.

However, Attorney General Soli Sorabjee contested the claim of Nariman saying 8220;not withstanding any other legal position, the central notification prevails over the state notification.8221;

Nariman said that as the state government8217;s April 30 order was supported by the Central government during hearing of Jayalalitha8217;s appeal in the Madras High Court against the appointment of three special judges, the present notification would have no legal sanctity.

The Advocate General of Tamil Nadu stated in his petition that 8220;the February 5 notification issued by the Government of India do not in any way affect the group of cases regarding to Jayalalitha which are already allocated by the state government on April 30, 1997 after consultation with Madras High Court.8221;

In the alternative, he requested the apex court to issue an appropriate order quashing or altering the central notification as it violated the basic structure of Constitution of India which guaranteed independence of judiciary.

The Central Government had issued the notification claiming that it alone had the power under Section 42 of Prevention of Corruption Act to order transfer of cases from one court to another.

The state government had under Section 31 of the Act transferred the cases on April 30, 1997, to the three special judges for a speedy trial.

The three special judges at Chennai had refused to acknowledge the central notification and were at present going ahead with the proceedings in the cases against Jayalalitha and others.