SC ruling in Jaya cases today

The bench had on April 15 reserved its judgement on the SLP by Jayalalitha challenging the constitutional validity of Section 31 of the Prevention of Corruption Act under which the State Government in April 1997 had set up three special court to exclusively try cases against her.

The Centre8217;s notification of February five, which reallocated cases against Jayalalitha from the three special judges to other judges, was challenged by a consumer activist organisation, Voice, saying it amounted to interference in the powers of judiciary.

During marathon arguments, Jayalalitha8217;s counsel had defended the Central Government notification and said the notifications issued by Karunanidhi government were malafide in nature and with the sole intention to persecute his political rival.

Attorney General Soli J Sorabjee had said that though the Centre had taken a stand before the apex court that it would exercise its powers under Section 42 of Act for reallocation of cases in consultation with the Madras High Court, quot;apparently it did not receive any communication from the Chief Justice.quot;

However, he had stoutly defended the constitutional validity of both the Central notification and Section 31 of the Act but did not comment on the validity of the state government notifications saying it was for the state government to satisfy the court that it had validly exercised the power.

Counsel for Tamil Nadu government, had contended that state government had created the three special courts as allocating the 46 corruption cases against Jayalalitha to the existing judges would have over burdened them resulting in a delay of trial.

He said that the state government had obtained concurrence of high court in setting up of the three special courts and Jayalalitha should not have any grievance if the trial was held on a day to day basis.