Supreme Court to hear Kanimozhi’s plea in 2G case on January 21

A Bench of Chief Justice P. Sathasivam and Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Shivakirti Singh fixed the date after senior counsel Abhishek Singhvi made a ‘mention,’ pleading for early listing of the petition filed in July 2013.

January 08, 2014 12:53 am | Updated June 04, 2016 04:49 pm IST - NEW DELHI:

DMK MP Kanimozhi. File photo

DMK MP Kanimozhi. File photo

The Supreme Court will hear on January 21 the writ petition filed by Kanimozhi Karunanidhi, MP, seeking to quash the charges framed against her by the trial court in the 2G spectrum scam case.

A Bench of Chief Justice P. Sathasivam and Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Shivakirti Singh fixed the date after senior counsel Abhishek Singhvi made a ‘mention,’ pleading for early listing of the petition filed in July 2013.

In the petition filed by advocate Joseph Aristotle, the daughter of the former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, M. Karunanidhi, said the Supreme Court granting a stay, on a CBI application, on all proceedings in the Delhi High Court resulted in violation of her fundamental right under Article 21. A Bench headed by Justice G.S. Singhvi (since retired) later upheld the CBI’s action.

Ms. Kanimozhi said the restraint order curtailed her fundamental right to contest baseless charges through a quash petition, so she was constrained to file the writ petition.

Ms. Kanimozhi said she was one of the directors of Kalaignar TV for a mere two weeks, from June 6 to 20, 2007. She resigned much before the launch of the TV channels and she had not signed any cheque on behalf of the company or received any monetary benefit. Further, she was only a 20 per cent minority shareholder, and a shareholder could not be saddled with criminal liability for acts of commission and omission of the company.

She said the allegations made against her pertained to the financial transactions made between December 2008 and August 2009 — after more than 18 months of her resignation.

The prosecution documents itself would show that she had no role in the operations of the company, especially in relation to the transfer of Rs. 200 crore, or its repayment. Nor was she a beneficiary of the loan transaction.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.