‘Stay’ needs to be stayed
Pendency of cases has always been a widely discussed matter in Kerala over the last many years
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: As J. Jayalalitha, former chief minister of Tamil Nadu walked into the Agrahara central prison after an 18-year-old ‘long’ legal battle, some politicians in Kerala might be viewing it all with a tinge of scorn as 18 years is not a ‘long’ enough period for corruption cases in Kerala…be it the Idamalayar case in which former minister R.Balakrishna Pillai was convicted after 20 years of prosecution or the infamous palmoil corruption cases which have reached nowhere even after two decades, thanks to the loopholes in our legal machinery.
The pendency of cases has always been a widely discussed matter in Kerala over the last many years. As discussions still keep on going without any effective remedies, the number of cases pending at various levels keeps on escalating - 1,198 at the end of last year. A good number of officials or politicians accused in corruption cases even pass away by the time cases reach their logical conclusion.
Former chief minister K. Karunakaran who was involved in the palmoil corruption case and former minister T.M. Jacob who was involved in a couple of corruption cases are instances in point. The quantum of money involved in corruption gets insignificant with the passage of time.
‘Stay’ has been the most effective tool used by vested interests to delay cases indefinitely. If the court proceedings of a case drag on for 20 years, the number of days the case was actually considered by the court might be only around 50 days. For the rest of the 7,250 days, the cases could have been kept waiting for vacating of stays at various levels, legal experts point out.
Cases initiated under the Prevention of Corruption Act are considered at three-levels of judiciary, the Vigilance special court or Lok Ayukta at the initial stage and High Court and Supreme Court as appellate authorities. In the existing legal framework that offers much protection to the accused, proceedings of cases could be easily stayed citing technical reasons. Though there have been Supreme Court and High Court directions not to stay corruption cases, lawyers often manage to find loopholes and obtain stays.
Even Justice K.T. Thomas had issued a directive not to stay corruption cases. “It’s high time the courts kept off from staying cases merely for technical reasons. Otherwise, stays should be granted specific time limit,” says advocate Cherinyoor P. Sasidharan Nair. In many cases the accused obtain stays for indefinite periods citing technical reasons like want of prosecution sanctions or unavailability of documents. For instance, a major chunk of the two decade-old palmoil case, citing lack of sanction from appropriate authorities to prosecute Karunakaran and other IAS officers..
A Supreme Court bench comprising Justice P.Sathasivam (present Kerala Governor) and Justice B.S. Chauhan, while convicting R. Balakrishna Pillai in the Idamalayar case in 2011, even expressed concern over the undue delay citing that the corruption pertaining to the case had taken place in 1982. The prosecution had commenced in 1991 and the final judgement came only in 2011.
“Eighteen years is not a long period for corruption cases unless the laws are amended to ensure time-bounded trial. At present the protection offered by the law to the accused is being misused to delay the proceedings indefinitely,” said senior lawyer K.K. Vijayan.