Top

Jayalalithaa comeback: Legal hurdle looms

Jayalalithaa was acquitted by Karnataka HC in Rs 66 crore disproportionate assets case

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has been moved on Thursday to stop the AIADMK General Secretary Jayalalithaa from being sworn-in as the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu on May 23, following her acquittal by the Karnataka High Court in the Rs. 66 crore disproportionate assets case. In his public interest writ petition advocate G.S. Mani, a member of actor Vijaykanth's DMDK party said, that Ms. Jayalalithaa's disqualification from contesting the polls after she ceased to be an MLA could not be wiped off immediately after her acquittal by the High Court. He said she could not take charge as the Chief Minister till the apex court permits her to do so after a proper appeal is filed against the High Court verdict within the 90 days limitation period.

The petitioner said the benevolent constitutional scheme under Article 164 (4), that a non member of the legislative assembly can be sworn in as Chief Minister of State, cannot be misused in the case of a person, suffering disqualification following conviction by the court. He wanted the apex court to lay down guidelines on convicted persons with criminal background assuming public office, without the apex court confirming their acquittal or granting them permission to take charge of the office.

On merit, he said the Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court while acquitting Ms. Jayalalithaa and three others on May 11 had relied upon a judgment of this court in 1977 holding that it would not be an offence if the accused had disproportionate assets not more than 10 per cent of the known sources of income. In the present case, if the grave error of calculation of the single judge is rectified, the excess amount of disproportionate assets of accused is more than 76 per cent.

He pointed out that he sent a detailed representation to the Tamil Nadu Governor and other authorities not to allow Ms. Jayalalithaa to take charge as the Chief Minister on May 23. As there was no fruitful result or response he was constrained to file the present writ petition, he said.

( Source : dc )
Next Story