We wanted to restructure BBMP and then hold elections: TB Jayachandra

Law and parliamentary affairs minister T.B. Jayachandra is omnipresent in all spheres of the government. He is part of 28 cabinet sub-committees, heads eight committees besides handling his portfolios which are as varied as  law, parliamentary affairs, animal husbandry and religious endowment. Though he might sound casual during a conversation, he ensures he does not share information he does not want to share! Does anyone know that he held three meetings over testing the quality of KMF milk? In an interview with Deccan Chronicle, Mr Jayachandra discussed the monsoon session of the state legislature and the recent high court order on BBMP polls which came as a rude shock for the government. Excerpts.

 

We were never opposed to holding elections to BBMP. The SC ST Commission had a genuine complaint. So, they moved the court. Their argument was if the reservation of wards was carried out on the basis of 2001 census, the SCs and STs would lose five or six seats. So, they urged the court to issue an order to the government to reserve the wards based on the 2011 census. We wanted to restructure the BBMP and then hold elections. But, things did not move the way we wanted.

 

For the government, rule of law is very important. The BJP and JD(S) pretend to follow the Constitution. Why did these two parties remain silent when the high court verdict in the Jayalalithaa case came? They never insisted that the government should go on appeal against the verdict acquitting her.

 

We were never against holding elections. If we had initiated steps to restructure BBMP a year before, even you would have claimed that we (Congress government) were out to destabilize BJP which was in power in BBMP. I will not respond to the court’s verdict but I can say we had no malafide intentions.

 

Long ago the Chamaiah Committee looked into various laws and their relevance. There was a legislation passed in 1976 which says a marriage for which more than Rs 5,000 is spent, should be treated as an affluent marriage. Why can’t we amend or repeal it if is not relevant now? When we moved to amend it, it became a controversy. I have written to ministers and secretaries several times asking them to explain if the old laws of their departments are relevant.

 

Not really. The cabinet sub-committee scrutinised the cases individually. When such rioting happens, the police may not be there and reach after the incident to book everyone at the scene be it children or old people. So we decided to drop the cases. Do you know that when the cabinet decided to drop cases against minister H. Anjaneya and S.S. Mallikarjun (Shamanoor Shivashankarappa’s son) for violating election rules, the Election Commission refused to close the case. Similarly, even if the cabinet decides to drop the case, it is upto the court to accept this or not.

 

No, we have to look at it from a different perspective. Our philosophy is not to allow an innocent person to be tortured or put to hardship. 

 

The advocate general gives advice on legal matters. On his suggestion, we appoint law officers because the government is a big litigant. Earlier, government advocates were appointed on political considerations. Now, we appoint them based on the advocate general’s assessment.

 

In the last two years nothing major has happened except the BBMP case in which the court passed strictures. In this case he did not appear for the state.

 

We have a peculiar problem in the Supreme Court. Nearly 1800 to 1900 cases involving the Karnataka government are pending there and we have three advocates. A major problem we are facing is that the administrative department often intimates us after the case is heard or just a day before the hearing. So, we are unable to make preparations or take the case in the right direction.  We needed an expert who could co-ordinate between the administrative department and the three advocates. The legal advisor does this job. He is not above the Advocate General.