Supreme Court transfers Jayalalithaa cases to Karnataka fearing failure of justice

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa today suffered a major setback with the Supreme Court directing transfer of the disproportionate assets case against her from a special court in Chennai to a Special Court in Bangalore. Supreme court said that the manner in which the trial was conducted in Chennai would have amounted to failure of justice undermining the public confidence in fair trial.

Besides Ms. Jayalalithaa, others accused in the Rs.66.65-crore wealth case are N. Sasikala, her erstwhile foster son, V. N. Sudhakaran, and Ilavarasi.

Allowing a petition filed by DMK leader K Anbazaghan, seeking transfer of the case outside Tamil Nadu, a Bench comprising Justice S N Variava and Justice H K Sema took strong exception to the fact that Jayalalithaa though an accused in the case had never appeared before the trial Court at Chennai and that a questionnaire was sent to her Poes Garden residence for the purpose of questioning her.

Referring to recalling of over 70 witnesses of whom more than 60 resiled from their earlier statements without any cross-examination from the Public Prosecutor after Jayalalithaa became the Chief Minister, the Bench said the petitioner has made out a case that the public confidence in the fairness of the trial was being seriously undermined.

"As revealed from the facts, great prejudice appear to have been caused to the prosecution which could culminate in grave miscarriage of justice. The witnesses who had been examined and cross-examined earlier should on such a flimsy ground never have been recalled for cross-examination," Justice Sema, writing for the Bench, said.

He said the fact that it was done after Jayalalithaa assumed the power as the Chief Minister of the State and the Public Prosecutor appointed by her Government did not oppose and/or give consent to application for recall of witnesses were indicative of how judicial process was being subverted.

The Apex Court said "if the criminal trial is not free and fair and not free from bias, judicial fairness and criminal justice system would be at stake shaking the confidence of the public in the system and woe would be the rule of law.

"In the present case, the circumstances as recited above are such as to create reasonable apprehension in the minds of the public at large in general and the petitioner in particular that there is every likelihood of failure of justice," it said.