Seeks exemption from personal appearance on November 8
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa has moved the Supreme Court against a Bangalore special court's October 21 order that directed her to appear before it on November 8 to answer the remaining questions under Section 313 of the Cr. PC in the disproportionate assets case.
In a special leave petition, she said the Supreme Court, in its order, had stated: “We request the presiding officer of the special court to take up this matter on October 20 and conclude the statement of the petitioner preferably the same day. In case, for any reason, the statement is not concluded the same day, it may be taken up the next day.”
Ms. Jayalalithaa said the special court had formulated 1,339 questions in all, and she had answered 567. Because of the large number of questions, it was not possible for the court to conclude the examination in two days. “The court proposes to continue the examination for many more days. It has now postponed further examination to November 8.”
She said: “The two days of appearance of the petitioner, on October 20 and 21, led to massive traffic disruptions in Bangalore and largely inconvenienced the inhabitants because … over 1,500 policemen were deployed for security, and where [an order under] Section 144 of the Cr. PC [unlawful assembly] was imposed. It has also been at the cost of some re-arrangement of the necessary administrative and constitutional duties required from the petitioner.
“She is occupying a constitutional office, which requires her to be on duty at short notice at all conceivable times. Keeping all these factors in mind, this court ordered [that] her examination may be concluded preferably in one day. However, the special court seeks to indefinitely continue the process till all its … questions are exhausted. The special court does not seek to adhere to the orders of this court by either restricting its questions or, in the alternative, by resorting to the provisions of Section 313(5) of the Cr. PC by allowing a written statement to the questions.”
After the amendment to Section 313(5) of the Cr.PC in 2005, Ms. Jayalalithaa said, the examination of an accused could also be done by way of a written statement, as the aim of the amendment was to enable the accused to file a written statement on the basis of the questions prepared by the court with the help of the prosecutor and defence counsel.
She said it was a settled law that when the accused was not inclined to answer orally and was not claiming prejudice and wanted to submit herself to filing of the written statement, there was nothing wrong in permitting her to file the written statement. She sought an interim stay on the operation of the two orders, dated October 20 and 21, since the special court erred in not considering the avoidable costs in terms of time, money and aggravation suffered by the inhabitants of Bangalore.
Jayalaitha is taking law on her own hands.supreme Court can hear only the appeals of a lower court order and should not interfere in the proceedings of the trial court. Jayalalitha was going on getting adjournments for 15 years and Supreme court was only a silent spectator. Now she insist the Supreme court to finish the case. just because this Jayalalitha has money she should not go on filing cases on flimsy ground at Supreme Court to get adjournment and avoid appearing in the case. This lady should be put in jail for the rest of her life time. She is purely running her Government with Goonda power and money power. She is a bad example. Supreme Court should not entertain all her flimsy petitions filed for getting adjournments. Tis only proves that a person with money can do anything anywhere and even in Supreme Court.
Video Conferencing for high profile members will finish the case faster whether it is Prime minister, Chief minister, MP, MLA etc ... India is leading in IT exports, it is time use it in judiciary also.........
Mr Srinivasan...I stand corrected on the issue of transfer to Bangalore...having said that, there is enough materials (just google) to suggest the alternative. Be that as it may, what applies to goose should apply to gander as well...Had the case been decided in this long period of 14 years, we would not be here writing about this. She dragged this on and on for ever. As an "aam" citizen would you get this lee way? Could you get an exemption to appear in front of Egmore magistrate leave alone the High court, instead submit your answers in writing? Her and her ministers' absence will not cause the government machinery to break down. She is assuming a great amount of self importance which she does not deserve! I am sure you are aware of this.
MR Sharma is not correct when he states that the case was transferred to Bangalore at Jayalalitha's instance.The case was going on in Tamilnadu and Anbazhagan of the DMK got it transferred out of the state through a petition to the Supreme Court. Jayalalitha is not refusing to answer the questions. What is wrong in answering in writing?
Indira Gandhi the then Prime Minister of India appeared before the Allahabad High Court in the Case filed challenging her election. Why not this madam appear before the court to answer the questions. I would like to quote the postulate laid down by Chief Justice J.S. Verma in the Jain Hawala case: “Be you ever so high, the law is above you". If Supreme Court refuses to allow her any relief, she may have to appear before the Trial Court. As such why don't she obey the orders of the court.
In the interest of justice being served, the current petition of Ms Jayalalitha should not be entertained. The supreme court could not have envisaged a situation where some 1300+ questions were going to be asked of the defendant. Now that this is now confirmed by the special court, the SC should take congnisance of this and order Ms J to appear before the court. It was at her insistence the case was transferred to Bangalore. Was she not aware of the security issues then? Was she concerned about the traffic issues and the inconvenience it would cause to the general public? These social issues were far off in her mind and for her to put them forward now is nothing short of hypocracy.
Please Email the Editor