SC admits petition against Centre’s notification on Jaya cases

Counsel for Voice, senior advocate Anil Diwan, contended that issuance of the notification by the Centre on cases against Jayalalitha amounted to delaying the speedy trial in the 46 cases against the former chief minister, some of her erstwhile Cabinet colleagues and certain bureaucrats.

Beginning arguments, the Advocate General’s counsel, senior advocate Shanti Bhusan, contended that the February 5 notification wasissued by the Centre without consulting the Madras High Court, which had earlier upheld the State Government order appointing three special judges to exclusively try corruption cases against Jayalalitha.

He said that by doing so, the Centre had tried to interfere in the powers of the Judiciary and the act amounted to “threat to rule of law and independence of Judiciary”.

The arguments in the case would continue tomorrow.

The bench repeatedly asked Bhusan how these submissions would justify the locus standi of the Advocate General to file a writ petition in his official capacity.

Attorney General Soli J Sorabjee voiced serious reservations about the maintainability of the petition filed by the Advocate General, saying that the relationship of the Advocate General with a State Government was that of an advocate and client, and an advocate could not assume the rights of his client.

The bench then proceeded to hear the petition filed by Voice, which was seeking leave of the court to appealagainst the Madras High Court’s decision not to entertain it, as the issue in question was already being agitated in the Supreme Court.

Counsel for Jayalalitha, senior advocate P P Rao, expressed his reservations about allowing a public interest litigant to interfere in a matter, which he termed, was purely between the present Chief Minister and his political rival.

However, Diwan contended that the Centre has issued the notification to delay the trial in order to appease a person, as the Centre was dependent on the support of her political party.