NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Tamil Nadu govt to provide details of cases pertaining to four political personalities against whom sanction for prosecution in corruption cases granted by the competent authorities were withdrawn following a change of government in the state after elections.
TN additional advocate general Amit Anand Tiwari termed the PIL filed by Chennai-based lawyer Karuppiah Gandhi in this connection as a "motivated petition", aimed at garnering political mileage, and asserted before a bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N K Singh that the state has scrupulously adhered to the procedure established by law to deal with the cases.
Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate D S Naidu said the petition referred to 18 political personalities, who were or are ministers or MPs, against whom investigations were derailed, chargesheets were supplemented with assertions about their innocence to close the cases, or sanction for prosecution granted earlier were withdrawn. "Withdrawing sanction to prosecute is unheard of in criminal jurisprudence," he said.
Referring to Tiwari's "politically motivated petition" argument, Justice Bhuyan told Naidu, "This is a malady not confined to Tamil Nadu alone. It is spread to the entire country. If you open a Pandora's box, it will come back to you one day".
Tiwari said that investigations were carried out in the cases and taken to logical ends. The Madras high court was seized of some of the cases, he said.
The bench told him, "Why don't you file a short affidavit giving details about the four cases where the previous sanction for prosecution was withdrawn allegedly after a change of political regime? We will confine the proceedings to these four cases, which appear to be serious".
On the prayer of the petitioner to transfer trial in these cases against politicians to another state, the bench said it would create complications over appointment of public prosecutor (PP). Naidu said the state where the cases are transferred can be empowered to appoint the PP, to which the bench did not agree.
Tamil Nadu, in its affidavit filed earlier, had said, "The criminal cases investigated by the Directorate of Vigilance and anti-corruption bureau are dealt with in accordance with law without extraneous pressure. In spite of the party in power, the investigation, trial and appeal proceedings are carried out as per the established law and procedure".
TN additional advocate general Amit Anand Tiwari termed the PIL filed by Chennai-based lawyer Karuppiah Gandhi in this connection as a "motivated petition", aimed at garnering political mileage, and asserted before a bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N K Singh that the state has scrupulously adhered to the procedure established by law to deal with the cases.
Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate D S Naidu said the petition referred to 18 political personalities, who were or are ministers or MPs, against whom investigations were derailed, chargesheets were supplemented with assertions about their innocence to close the cases, or sanction for prosecution granted earlier were withdrawn. "Withdrawing sanction to prosecute is unheard of in criminal jurisprudence," he said.
Referring to Tiwari's "politically motivated petition" argument, Justice Bhuyan told Naidu, "This is a malady not confined to Tamil Nadu alone. It is spread to the entire country. If you open a Pandora's box, it will come back to you one day".
Tiwari said that investigations were carried out in the cases and taken to logical ends. The Madras high court was seized of some of the cases, he said.
The bench told him, "Why don't you file a short affidavit giving details about the four cases where the previous sanction for prosecution was withdrawn allegedly after a change of political regime? We will confine the proceedings to these four cases, which appear to be serious".
On the prayer of the petitioner to transfer trial in these cases against politicians to another state, the bench said it would create complications over appointment of public prosecutor (PP). Naidu said the state where the cases are transferred can be empowered to appoint the PP, to which the bench did not agree.
Tamil Nadu, in its affidavit filed earlier, had said, "The criminal cases investigated by the Directorate of Vigilance and anti-corruption bureau are dealt with in accordance with law without extraneous pressure. In spite of the party in power, the investigation, trial and appeal proceedings are carried out as per the established law and procedure".
You may also like
Capitol riot case: FBI ousts former acting director, senior agents involved in January 6 probe; more removals expected
Nicolas Jackson suspicions raised by Newcastle as Chelsea make £20m transfer sacrifice
Fury over benefits 'loophole' handing cash to thousands of migrants
Kapil Sharma's Kap's Cafe in Canada attacked for the second time in a month; Multiple shots fired
Ballon d'Or 2025 nominees: Man Utd reject Scott McTominay named as PSG stars dominate
