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

TN asks sanction to amend its writ against Centre's notice

The Tamil Nadu advocate general Wednesday filed an application in the Supreme Court seeking permission to amend his writ petition, which challenged a Central notification transferring 46 corruption cases against former chief minister J Jayalalitha and others from special courts to sessions courts.

The application was filed before a division bench comprising Justices G T Nanavati and S P Kurdukar in view of the Centre's counter affidavit challenging the writ's maintainability.

The challenge was made on the ground that the advocate general was a law officer of the state and was not affected by the February 5 notification; so he had no locus standi to file the petition.

The judges would decide on the application after hearing Attorney General Soli J Sorabjee.

Earlier, senior counsel Anil Divan submitted before the court that the motive behind the notification was to delay the trial of the former chief minister, her erstwhile cabinet colleagues and certain bureaucrats.

The counsel, appearing for Voice, a consumer activist organisation, was making his submissions during resumed hearing. Tuesday, the court had admitted a special leave petition by the organisation against an order of the Madras high court, which refused to entertain its petition challenging the Central notification.

Divan submitted that by the impugned notification, the Centre had now chosen judges to try the cases.

The counsel wanted to know what the pressing need to transfer the cases was when the Madras high court had already upheld the April 30, 1997 notification issued by the state government appointing three special judges.

''The Centre was aware of the fact that all the 46 cases had been assigned to the three special judges. It was also aware that it could not supersede the notification issued by the state government. Then, what could be the intention of the Centre?'' Justice Nanavati asked, adding that there was no doubt that the trial before the special judges was going on expeditiously.

The attorney general's response was that the object of conducting speedy trial in these cases was not thwarted by the notification.

The court replied: ''The 46 cases were being proceeded with by the three special judges on a day-to-day basis. Can the Central government say it can reallocate the cases because it has the power?''

The attorney general said he would reply to it when his turn came.

UNI

RELATED REPORT:
Assault charge scuttles Congress hopes of allying with Jaya

Tell us what you think of this report