The Supreme Court has dismissed a curative petition filed by the State of Karnataka, challenging the abatement of its appeal against the acquittal of former Tamil Nadu chief minister Jayalalithaa and recovery of ₹100 crore fine in a disproportionate assets case.
The former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister died on December 5, 2016 .
A three-judge Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Madan B. Lokur recently dismissed the curative in their chambers.
They held that the curative had no merits. Curative is a rare legal remedy. The State had to prove either violation of natural principles of justice or bias on the part of the judges who had decided the appeal.
"The application for personal hearing is rejected. We have gone through the curative petitions and the relevant documents. In our opinion no case is made out," the Bench recorded in its brief order, dismissing the curative plea.
The Supreme Court had similarly denied Karnataka's review petition last year in April.
The State had contended that the Supreme Court finding in its February 14, 2017 judgment that the corruption case against Jayalalithaa stood abated with her demise was an “error on the face of the record”, which merits a re-look.
Slams Karnataka government
In a scathing judgment based on an appeal filed by the Karnataka government, an apex court Bench of Justices P.C. Ghose and Amitava Roy, both retired now, had set aside the Karnataka High Court's acquittal of Sasikala, V.N. Sudhakaran and J. Ilavarasi in September 2014. All three are serving their sentence in the case.
The Supreme Court had however concluded that the case against Ms. Jayalalithaa stood abated with her death.
With the dismissal of the curative plea, the legal remedies open to the State in the Supreme Court comes to an end. The order to pay a fine of ₹100 crore stands abated.
In its curative petition, Karnataka said “if a party dies after the conclusion of arguments and judgment is reserved, there is no question of abatement of appeal".
The judgment subsequently pronounced will have the same force and effect as if the same was pronounced before the death took place, it contended.
“There are no provisions either in the Constitution or in the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 for such abatement of appeal. On the other hand, the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 provide that both in case of civil appeals as well as election petitions there will be no abatement if the death takes place after conclusion of hearing,” the curative petition had argued.
Karnataka had argued that the fine should be recovered from her estate.
A criminal appeal involving offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act stands on a "slightly different footing" where the allegation is of acquisition of disproportionate assets by a public servant, Karnataka had argued
