The Karnataka government has sought clarifications from the Advocate-General for filing an appeal in the Supreme Court against the Karnataka High Court’s verdict of acquitting Tamil Nadu CM Jayalalithaa in the disproportionate assets case. However, legal experts term it a “delaying tactic”.
In what could be termed as a “delaying tactic” for filing an appeal in the Supreme Court against the High Court of Karnataka’s verdict of acquitting Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa in the disproportionate assets case, the Karnataka government has sought clarifications on two “legal issues” from Advocate-General Ravivarma Kumar.
The first clarification sought by the State’s Law Department is whether sanction from the competent authority is necessary for filling the appeal in the Supreme Court against the HC verdict. The second clarification sought is on whether the consent of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka is essential to appoint a special public prosecutor (SPP) or a senior advocate to argue on behalf of the State before the apex court.
ADVERTISEMENT
However, legal experts point out that the clarification on requirement of ‘sanction from competent authority’ to file appeal is “absurd” as it is crystal clear in law that question for sanction arises only at the stage of prosecution, particularly prior to taking cognisance of offence against a public servant during trial, and not at any later stage.
These clarifications were sought prior to the State Cabinet deliberating on the subject of filing an appeal in the DA case.
The Governor of Tamil Nadu, in the DA case in 1997 itself, had granted “sanction” for prosecuting Ms. Jayalalithaa without which the court could not have proceeded against her. Besides, both the trial court and the Madras High Court way back in 1997 had upheld the validity of sanction granted by the Governor.
ADVERTISEMENT
A former State Public Prosecutor pointed out that there was no need to place the file of a criminal case before the State Cabinet if the Law Secretary, who is competent to take a final decision for appealing against an order of acquittal in a criminal case, has taken a decision to file appeal before the Supreme Court.
“Decision to file appeal against order of acquittals in all serious offences is a routine affair within the Law Department,” he pointed out. The matter requires consideration from the Law Minister only if the Law Secretary, for any reason, decides that there was no need to file appeal against the order of acquittal, the officer said, while pointing out that clarification sought from the A-G could be for “prolonging” the process of filing appeal as the government may not wish to take the “blame” for not filing appeal in a corruption case.