J Jayalalithaa
The Supreme Court today said that criticism of public policy could not be a ground for slapping defamation suit as it issued fresh notice to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa on a plea alleging abuse of power by her.
The Supreme Court said today defamation laws cannot be used by the government to stifle criticism.
As Chief Justice of India (CJI), Justice HL Dattu appeared to be a man in a hurry. However, despite having held the office for a near eternity compared to many other recent CJIs, what he has managed to achieve as a judge and administrator in that time is questionable.
The Karnataka government today moved the Supreme Court challenging the state high court's verdict acquitting Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa, her aide Sasikala Natrajan and two others in a case of disproportionate assets.
The Karnataka government has urged the apex court to stay the operation of the May 11 verdict.
"Pass an ex-parte ad-interim order of stay, staying the operation of impugned final judgment and order of May 11," a petition by the Karnataka government said in its prayer for interim relief.
The Karnataka government contended that the high court committed a "grave mistake" in arriving at a figure of Rs 24,17,31,274 while a total of 10 loans taken by Jayalalithaa and others and the companies they were associated with was Rs 10,67,31,274.
It is because of this "grave mistake" in the calculation that the high court erroneously concluded that the disproportionate assets were only to the extent of 8.12 percent of the income whereas it was 76.7 percent.
Contending that the reversal by the high court of the trial court verdict convicting Jayalalithaa had resulted in "miscarriage of justice", the Karnataka government said that apart from other infirmities, the "grave mistake" had led to the acquittal of Jayalalithaa and others including VN. Sudhakaran and J Elavarasi.
The Karnataka government has questioned whether Jayalalithaa's appeal against the trial court order convicting her and others was maintainable without making Karnataka a respondent.
The state has contended that because Jayalalithaa and the others did not make the Karnataka government a party to the case, it could not appoint a public prosecutor to pursue it.
The trial court in Bengaluru on Sep 27 convicted Jayalalithaa of possessing assets disproportionate to her known sources of income and awarded four jail terms and fined her Rs 100 crore.
The case dates to the period from 1991 to 1996 when Jayalalithaa was the chief minister of Tamil Nadu.
The Karnataka government had earlier this month decided to appeal the acquittal, after special public prosecutor BV Acharya had recommended that it was a case fit for appeal in May.
The politico’s acquittal by the Karnataka high court was widely criticised for dubious maths and reasoning.
"Yes I have recommended saying it is a fit case for appeal” for the Karnataka government special prosecutor BV Acharya, who was responsible for getting the initial trial court verdict against J Jayalalithaa, told the Times of India as well as the Hindu Businessline.
Acharya had said earlier this week after the Karnataka high court had set aside Jayalalithaa’s conviction that an appeal was likely because the prosecution had not been allowed to make oral arguments.
In addition, there were several other potential issues with the judgment, including potentially questionable arithmetic.
As Vikram Hegde explained in a Legally India column on Livemint yesterday, former Tamil Nadu chief minister J Jayalalithaa was acquitted by the Karnataka high court in appeal because it found that only 8 per cent of her assets were illegal (because there was no proof of their origin).
The All India Bar Association (AIBA) has has requested the Supreme Court’s secretary general to issue contempt proceedings against Tamil TV news channel, Thanthi, for apparently having broadcast live the arguments of Fali Nariman successfully arguing for J Jayalalithaa’s bail in the Supreme Court, reported the Business Standard.
AIBA chairman Adish C Aggarwala said: “It is inappropriate and contemptuous to record and telecast court proceedings. The telecast of Fali Nariman’s arguments in Jayalalithaa bail matter in the Supreme Court by Thanthi Television on October 18 is contemptuous and the Supreme Court of India should take stern action of contempt of court against all concerned who are responsible for its recording and telecast.”
Also see: Very topical John Oliver on US live Supreme Court TV reporting, via @logic on Twitter
The Supreme Court Friday granted bail to former Tamil Nadu chief minister J Jayalalithaa, convicted of possessing assests disproportionate to her known sources of income.
Alongwith Jayalalithaa, her aide Sasikala Natarajan and two others have also been granted bail.
PTI tweeted: “Jaya volunteered before SC to be kept in confinement in house for 2-3 months while pressing for bail.”
Update: However, the final order by the court, which has now been published, does not specify house arrest as a condition.
An apex court bench headed by Chief Justice HL Dattu said that all four will be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of the condition by the trial court.
The court made it clear that Jayalalithaa and three others will complete their appeal with all relevant documents before the high court in a matter of two months and thereafter, it will ask the high court to expedite and complete the hearing on the appeal within three months.
The court told senior counsel Fali Nariman, who appeared for Jayalalithaa after Ram Jethmalani had represented her in the Karnataka high court bail plea, that it will not grant a day more to his client if they don’t complete the paperwork of their appeal before the high court with all the documents within a span of two months.
Jayalalithaa is presently in a Bangalore jail after her conviction in the disproportionate assets case. The former chief minister was awarded four-year prison term and a fine of Rs.100 crore.
She had moved to the Supreme Court Oct 9 seeking the bail.
Jayalalithaa, along with her aide Sasikala Natrajan, VK Sudhakaran and J Ilavarasi, Oct 7 were refused bail by the Karnataka high court which held that there were no grounds for granting bail.
Besides her health grounds, Jayalalithaa has invoked section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the suspension of her sentence and grant of bail till the pendency of her appeal against the trial court order.
The high court Oct 7, while declining bail to Jayalalithaa and three others, had relied on apex court orders as it ruled that putting the sentence on hold after an appeal is filed against the trial court order was not automatic. It had said that plea for bail after the conviction was different from the plea for bail while the trial was on.
It had also cited the apex court ruling that “corruption amounts to violation of human rights and leads to economic imbalances”.
In the 18 year old disproportionate assets case, the trial court in Bangalore Sep 27, convicted Jayalalithaa for possessing assets disproportionate to her known sources of income and sentenced her to four jail term and Rs. 100 crore fine.
The case against Jayalalithaa and three others related to period from 1991 to 1996 involving Rs. 66.65 crores when she became chief minister for the first time.
The Supreme Court will Friday hear the bail plea of AIADMK chief J Jayalalithaa, who is at present in a Bangalore jail after her conviction in a corruption case.
The former Tamil Nadu chief minister was sentenced to four years in prison and a Rs.100 crore fine.
A bench headed by Chief Justice HL Dattu said the matter would be heard Friday as senior counsel Fali Nariman mentioned her matter for listing and an early hearing.
Jayalalithaa moved the apex court Oct 9 after the Karnataka high court Oct 7 turned down her bail plea, as well as of other convicts Sasikala Natrajan, VK Sudhakaran and J Ilavarasi. The court held that there were no grounds for granting them bail.
Besides health grounds, Jayalalithaa invoked Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the suspension of her sentence and grant of bail till the pendency of her appeal against the trial court order convicting and sentencing her in the case.
The high court had relied on apex court orders as it ruled that putting the sentence on hold after an appeal is filed against the trial court order was not automatic. It said the plea for bail after the conviction was different from the plea for bail while the trial was on.
It also cited the apex court ruling that “corruption amounts to violation of human rights and leads to economic imbalances”.
A trial court in Bangalore Sep 27 convicted Jayalalithaa in the 18-year-old case for possessing assets disproportionate to her known sources of income.
The case related to period from 1991 to 1996 involving Rs.66.65 crore when she became chief minister for the first time.
Former Tamil Nadu chief minister J Jayalalithaa, currently lodged in Bangalore jail following her conviction in a disproportionate assets case, today moved the Supreme Court seeking bail on several grounds including her ill health.
Jayalalithaa, along with her aide Sasikala Natrajan, VK Sudhakaran and J Ilavarasi, were Tuesday refused bail by the Karnataka high court which held that there were no grounds for granting bail.
Jayalalithaa alone moved the apex court for the grant of bail. The other three would be filing their appeals in a day or two.
Besides her health grounds, Jayalalithaa has invoked section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the suspension of her sentence and grant of bail till the pendency of her appeal against the trial court order convicting her in the case and sentencing her to a four-year jail term and a fine of Rs.100 crore.
The high court Oct 7, while declining bail to Jayalalithaa and three others, had relied on apex court orders as it ruled that putting the sentence on hold after an appeal is filed against the trial court order was not automatic. It had said that plea for bail after the conviction was different from the plea for bail while the trial was on.
It had also cited the apex court ruling that “corruption amounts to violation of human rights and leads to economic imbalances”.
Advocate KV Dhananjay argues that the sentencing order jailing then-Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa, is highly likely to be set aside by the High Court of Karnataka.