States: Tamil Nadu: A Case for Protest

India Today
October 12,1998

TAMIL NADU
A Case for Protest

The legal fraternity condemns delay in cases against VIPs.

By K M Thomas

A Case For Protest A joke doing the rounds in Tamil Nadu is that if the BJP-led Government signs the CTBT, the first question to come up will be whether there'll be anything in it for AIADMK chief J. Jayalalitha. Political meanings are read even in very innocuous actions. In such a politically surcharged atmosphere, the unseemly delay in concluding a case in which Jayalalitha is the petitioner has been raising uncomfortable questions in public and legal circles. A group of lawyers led by P. Ratinam went to the extent of tearing their gowns in protest against the undue delay in prosecuting VIPs involved in corruption cases.

The slow course of the three special courts in Chennai -- set up to try the 46 cases of corruption against the former chief minister and her associates -- is a standing testimony to the hurdles in fighting corruption cases against VIPs. After obtaining prior approval from the Madras High Court, the Tamil Nadu Government had appointed the special judges in April 1997 to try these cases. Jayalalitha had then challenged these appointments and a single judge ordered on June 17,1997, that the special court should not proceed beyond the trial stage. The matter was then referred to the first bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Liberhan and Justice D. Raju who after a detailed hearing of the case reserved orders on February 4 this year.

After the AIADMK's M. Thambidurai took over as the law minister in March, there was widespread speculation that he would try to dilute the cases against his party chief. A large number of advocates belonging to the legal wing of the AIADMK were posted as Central Government standing counsels on Thambidurai's advice. Raju was transferred as chief justice to the Himachal Pradesh High Court on June 29 before he could deliver any judgement on Jayalalitha's petition. An alleged attempt to transfer Liberhan was, however, stalled following strong protests from the bar.

Raju's transfer virtually put the clock back as Jayalalitha and other petitioners gained seven months in the process. Several lawyers feel the high court should periodically inform the bar on the pendency of cases before each judge. Ironically, nobody has dared make an open demand in this regard in the court knowing fully well that their own long-pending cases would be affected.

Meanwhile a new bench was constituted in July with Liberhan and Justice E. Padmanabhan to re-hear the cases. This has further slowed down the case. After another round of hearings, judgement on the validity of the special court was reserved again on September 21 and is expected to be delivered only after the puja holidays when the courts reopen. "Such exercises encroach upon precious judicial time," says Ratinam.

While the Supreme Court gives the right of precedence to special courts for the quick disposal of corruption cases, the fact is that litigants take advantage of legal loopholes causing inordinate delays. Advocate and columnist Geetha Ramaseshan says that while long-pending cases are endemic in the legal system, only those involving VIPs are highlighted. She says efforts must be made for the speedier dispensation of justice, irrespective of the persons involved or else judicial credibility would suffer. Advocate V. Prakash, who went on a three-day fast protesting against the proposed transfer of Liberhan, voices similar sentiments: "The legislative philosophy of the Prevention of Corruption Act is that corruption cases need special and immediate attention and trial should go on a day-to-day basis." Ratinam warns that if the judiciary continues to go slow on corruption cases, society will be the ultimate sufferer. Quoting Attorney-General Soli Sorabjee, he says, "Delay in justice will only help the mafia gain control over society." That is definitely a frightening prospect.

Issue Contents | Write to us | Subscriptions | Syndication