In a setback to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, the Supreme Court on Tuesday lifted the stay on criminal trial in the disproportionate assets case against her and three others pending in a special court in Bangalore.
A vacation Bench of Justice B.S. Chauhan and Justice A.K. Sikri had on May 26 stayed the trial till June 6, acting on a special leave petition filed by Ms. Jayalalithaa and V.N. Sasikala against a Karnataka High Court order declining to grant a stay. The stay was extended till June 16.
A vacation Bench of Justice Vikramajit Sen and Justice Shiva Kirti Singh on Tuesday dismissed the special leave petition filed by Ms. Jayalalithaa and recalled the stay after hearing her counsel, Shekar Naphade; Amarendra Saran, appearing for the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC); and R. Shanmugasundaram for Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam general secretary K. Anbazhagan.
Mr. Naphade argued that the trial court had committed gross contempt by not obeying the directions of the Madras High Court, which clearly said the criminal trial must proceed only after the disposal of the applications challenging the attachment of certain properties which did not belong to the accused. He said a subordinate court could not take the High Court order so lightly and it was an attempt to overreach the higher court’s directions. “The rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution were being violated because of the trial court’s order,” Mr. Naphade said.
He said he was opposing the directorate’s plea to withdraw the application pending in the trial court seeking attachment of certain properties as the prosecuting agency could not do so. He wanted the interim stay on trial to continue.
Mr. Saran said the appeal by Ms. Jayalalithaa and others had become infructuous as the attachment application had been withdrawn on May 26. He denied the allegation that the trial court had not complied with the Madras High Court directions. He said the trial court had stated in its May 7 order that final arguments would begin after the disposal of the attachment application. However, since the properties in question were already under the custody of the special court, the application was withdrawn, he said.
Mr. Shanmugasundaram endorsed Mr. Saran’s submissions. In his application, Mr. Anbazhagan, who had impleaded himself in the case, said the properties were attached when it was clearly established that money was transferred by the accused from one account to the other. These orders of attachments once passed would be in force till the termination of the criminal proceedings as provided under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, he said.
