TN Advocate General8217;s petition not maintainable: Centre

However, counsel for the Advocate General, Shanti Bhusan, contended that 8220;procedural technicalities should not blur the vital question 8212; whether the three special judges, who are at present proceeding with the trial, have jurisdiction to try the cases against the former chief minister or not.8221;

He accused the Centre of having malafide intention in passing the notification to delay the 8220;ongoing trial of the former chief minister8221; and said that the petition was filed by the Advocate General to ensure 8220;speedy trial and administration of justice8221;.

Sorabjee contended that the Advocate General could not approach the Apex Court with a petition under Article 32, as 8220;his fundamental rights, neither in his official or private capacity, has been violated8221;.

The court adjourned the matter till Tuesday as arguments remained inconclusive.

The Attorney General said that by filing this petition, the Advocate General, who was supposed to present the facts before the court fairly and without bias, 8220;has taken sides and disabled himself from performing the role of an amicus curaie8221;.

Taking objection to the maintainability of the petition, Sorabjee further said that the Constitution has provided Article 131 for any petition before the Supreme Court in relation to disputes between States and the Centre.

He said the Advocate General has committed another error by approaching the court under Article 32 in a matter, 8220;which is in pith and substance, a dispute between the State of Tamil Nadu and the Central Government8221;.

Sorabjee contended that as the Advocate General in his petition has attributed motive to the Centre and alleged malafide in the issuance of the notification, 8220;he has become an interested party and would not be able to perform the independent role as envisaged by the statute8221;.

Bhusan contended that the Centre had no power to issue the notification, as it had not taken the concurrence of the Madras High Court in appointing new judges and by doing so, has 8220;tried to usurp the power of the Judiciary8221;.

Two other petitions, one by Advocate M A Chinnaswamy and a Public Interest Litigation by VOICE consumer care council, supported the Advocate General8217;s contention, but when asked by the bench whether any new point was raised by them, they replied in the negative.