DMK leader K. Anbazhagan on Thursday contended before the Karnataka High Court that continuation of Bhavani Singh as Special Public Prosecutor was illegal as the State government has not issued fresh orders of appointment in the hearing of appeals filed by former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa and three others, challenging their conviction in a disproportionate assets case.
“The continuation of Singh as SPP is illegal and unlawful as Karnataka government has not issued a fresh order of appointment,” the DMK general secretary’s counsel C.V. Nagesh submitted before Justice Abdul Nazir.
Mr. Nagesh said Mr. Singh was not appointed by the State government as per the Supreme Court guidelines, but by the Chennai-based Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), which is under the control of the government headed by the AIADMK, whose supreme leader Jayalalithaa was the main accused.
The Karnataka government has to issue a fresh order of appointment as the case is now before the High Court after it was concluded in the lower court, Mr. Nagesh submitted.
The DVAC had appointed Mr. Singh as SPP only to argue before the special court, not before the special bench of the High Court, and hence he should be removed and replaced by someone else by the Karnataka government through a fresh order, Mr. Nagesh contended.
After hearing the submissions made by Mr. Nagesh, Justice Nazir posted the matter for next hearing on January 14, 2015.
Meanwhile, assembling for the fourth day of the day-to-day hearing, the Special Bench issued notices to Karnataka Chief Secretary, Secretary of the State Law department, the DVAC and Mr. Singh to file objections to Mr. Anbazhagan’s petition seeking permission to intervene as party respondent to assist SPP in the case.
All you need to about the Jayalalithaa disproportionate assets case:
Twists and Turns
- › The charges: Conspiracy: As CM, Jayalalithaa conspired with three others to acquire assets to the tune of Rs. 66.65 crore
- › Disproportionate Assets: The assets were disproportionate to her known income
- › Abetment: The other three abetted the offence by acting as benami owners of 32 private firms
- › Prosecution's take: Modus operandi was to deposit cash in benami firms’ accounts
- › Prosecution's take: The firms gave her address as theirs while opening accounts
- › Prosecution's take: Ms. Jayalalithaa spent crores of rupees on renovations and constructions, her foster son’s wedding and possessed huge quantity of jewellery.
- › Counter: Prosecution born and out of malice and vendetta, many illegalities and defects in investigation. She had sufficient income form legal sources. Others were not benamidars.
- › Counter: No material to show sarees, watches and footwear seized were bought during her tenure.
- › Counter: Income-Tax authorities and Tribunals have accepted their returns and valuation of assets.