ASSEMBLY POLL '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ELECTIONS '98
ARCHIVES

Thambidurai's 'threat exposes' AIADMK gameplan

N Sathiya Moorthy in Madras

Union Law Minister M Thambidurai's ''threat'' to invoke Article 365 of the Constitution on Tamil Nadu has ''exposed'' the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazagham's plans to get the Dravida Munnetra Kazagham state government dismissed at an early date, according to sources in the ruling party in Tamil Nadu.

''The idea is to use the dismissal to scuttle the corruption cases pending against AIADMK supremo and former chief minister Jayalalitha,'' these sources add.

Article 365 provides for a Presidential declaration that a ''situation has arisen in which the state government cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution''.

It relates to specific situations ''where any state has failed to comply with, or to give effect to any directions given'' by the Centre. Though no precedent seems to exist, any invocation of Article 365 could leave the Centre with little option but to dismiss the state government under Article 356.

Thambidurai's ''threat'', if it may be dubbed as such, arose from the Tamil Nadu government's refusal to provide details of the pending corruption cases against Jayalalitha and her erstwhile ministerial and bureaucratic aides, before three judges in Madras.

Any failure to provide information to the Centre on the application of a central law like the Prevention of Corruption Act could lead to a ''direction for compliance'' under Article 256 first, and the invocation of Article 365, Thambidurai said in a lengthy statement issued from Delhi over the Pongal week-end.

''The cat is out of the bag once again, and Thambidurai has not hidden his AIADMK's intention to get rid of the DMK government before the pending criminal cases could reach their logical end,'' says the DMK source. ''But we will not let it happen,'' he asserts, claiming that the state government has a ''fool-proof case'' before the Supreme Court, where the matter is now pending.

The source pooh-poohs Thambidurai outside the court, and the law officers of the Union inside, dragging the Tamil Nadu Special Courts bill of 1997 into the pending case.

''Jayalalitha's appeal against the Madras high court upholding the 'additional courts' to try PCA cases against her does not involve the Tamil Nadu bill, still awaiting Presidential assent,'' he adds. ''I do not know why they should confuse it with the pending case under an existing law, and seek to confuse others as well.''

Thambidurai had referred to the state government invoking PCA after Presidential assent was not forthcoming to the bill passed by the state assembly.

According to him, the bill had restricted its jurisdictional period to 1991-96, coinciding with Jayalalitha's chief ministership. He said that the Centre raised ''constitutional objections'', and the DMK government developed ''cold feet''.

The objections obviously related to the ''equality before law'' clause under Article 14, which any accused under the proposed law could have invoked while challenging its constitutional validity.

''It is this special treatment that was sought to be meted out by the state of Tamil Nadu which had been challenged (by Jayalalitha),'' Thambidurai added.

''It's common knowledge that no case can be filed under a proposed legislation, but only under an existing law,'' says the source, in response. ''The PCA was an existing law, and the state government used it, pending assent for its bill. Having filed the cases, it found no further reason to push forward the bill, and bring the pending cases under the purview of the new law, when cleared.''

The source seeks to justify the state government's stand on not having to provide information to the Centre on the pending cases.

''What have been constituted now are only 'additional courts' with special judges, both duly appointed by the Madras high court, and not the state government. There are no 'special courts' under the PCA for the state government to seek the Centre's concurrence before their creation nor provide information.''

''It's purely a state subject in the Constitution that the Tamil Nadu government is dealing with. The Centre does not come into the picture. This will be very clear from the high court's notification creating the 'additional courts', its appointment of judges, and its own transfer of pending cases to the three judges thus appointed. In fact, the high court verdict upholding the 'additonal courts' has very clearly stated the legal position.''

However, the source concedes that ''total confusion'' has been created in the public mind by the lack of understanding of the ''correct legal position'' even by the political masters who had been briefing the media.

''The latter too stuck to the term 'special courts' when they were not, maybe for the sake of convenience, but the technical differences that have cropped up since, have only confused the common man, even more.''

The source takes exception to the Centre writing to the state government for details of the pending cases under Section 4(2) of PCA.

''For one thing, there are no 'special courts' where the Centre needs to be involved. For another, the matter is pending before the Supreme Court, and unless the matter is decided otherwise, the high court verdict stays. That means the Centre is committing contempt of court,'' the source says, seeking to turn the tables on Thambidurai for laying similar charges against TN Law Minister Aladi Aruna.

The source, however, does not have answers to the political charges levelled by Thambidurai against Chief Minister M Karunanidhi, and his critising Aruna for dubbing Jayalalitha ''a coward lacking in courage''.

The Union minister had referred to Karunanidhi invoking the Tamil Nadu Public Men (Criminal Misconduct) Act, 1971, when a PCA case was already pending against him before a duly-constituted special court in the ''wheat deal scandal case'' pertaining to his first innings as chief minister.

Nor has the DMK source any answer to Thambidurai's question on why Karunanidhi had moved the Supreme Court saying that '`chief minister was not a public servant under the PCA.''

Tell us what you think of this report