Full Text of Order of SC On Selvi J.Jayalalithaa's(Bail ) SLP cr

we suspend the sentence and direct that the petitioners, (i) Selvi J.Jayalalithaa, (ii) Tmt.N.Sasikala, (iii) Mr.V.N. Sudhakaran, and (iv) TMT. J.Elasvarasi be released on bail on executing a bond with two solvent sureties by each of them to the satisfaction of the 36th Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (Spl. Court for Trial of Criminal Cases against Kum. Jayalalitha & Ors) at Bangalore. = IA No. 1/2014 in Crl.Appeal No. 835 of 2014 passed by the High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore) J JAYALALITHAA Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DV AND AC, CHENNAI Respondent(s) (With office report) = 2014- Oct. Moth – http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/outtoday/sr790014p-2014_10_17.pdf

POSTED BY ADVOCATEMOHAN ⋅ OCTOBER 17, 2014 

we suspend

the sentence and direct that the

petitioners, 

(i) Selvi J.Jayalalithaa, 

(ii) Tmt.N.Sasikala, 

(iii) Mr.V.N. Sudhakaran,

and 

(iv) TMT. J.Elasvarasi be released on

bail on executing a bond with two solvent

sureties by each of them to the

satisfaction of the 36th Addl. City Civil &

Sessions Judge (Spl. Court for Trial of

Criminal Cases against Kum. Jayalalitha &

Ors) at Bangalore. 

2014 = Oct. Month –http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/outtoday/sr790014p-2014_10_17.pdf

1
ITEM NO.65 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 7900/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated
07/10/2014 in in IA No. 1/2014 in Crl.Appeal No. 835 of 2014
passed by the High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore)
J JAYALALITHAA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY THE SUPERINTENDENT
OF POLICE DV AND AC, CHENNAI Respondent(s)
(With office report)
WITH
SLP(Crl) No. 7906-7908/2014
(With Office Report)
Date : 17/10/2014 These petitions were called on
for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Fali S. Nariman, Sr. Adv.
Mr. B. Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. A Navaneetha Krishnan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S. Senthil, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Agrawal,Adv.
Ms. Meha Aggarwal, Adv.
Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. C Mani Shankar, Adv.
Mr. Rupesh Kumar,Adv.
Mr. A. Ashokan,Adv.
Mr. Raj Kamal, Adv.
Mr. Farz Khan, AdV.
For Respondent(s)/ Mr. Subramonium Swamy,
Intervenor(s) In-person
Ms. Roxy Subramanian, Adv.
Mr. Yatinder Choudhary, Adv.
2
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
After hearing Shri Fali S. Nariman,
Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior counsel
for the petitioners and Shri Subramonium
Swamy, party-in-person and also the
complainant, for the present, we suspend
the sentence and direct that the
petitioners, (i) Selvi J.Jayalalithaa, (ii)
Tmt.N.Sasikala, (iii) Mr.V.N. Sudhakaran,
and (iv) TMT. J.Elasvarasi be released on
bail on executing a bond with two solvent
sureties by each of them to the
satisfaction of the 36th Addl. City Civil &
Sessions Judge (Spl. Court for Trial of
Criminal Cases against Kum. Jayalalitha &
Ors) at Bangalore.
Call these matters on 18th December,
2014.
[ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Vinod Kulvi ]
Court Master Asstt. Registrar

The bail hearing — as it happened in the Supreme Court

The Hindu NEW DELHI, October 18, 2014

The bail hearing — as it happened in the Supreme Court

10.30 a.m.:  The First Court of the country presided over by a Bench led by Chief Justice of India H.L. Dattu and Justices Madan B. Lokur and A.K. Sikri assembles for the day. The courtroom is jam-packed. Many lawyers from Tamil Nadu and AIADMK cadre present in the court and visitors’ gallery.

11.30 a.m.: Senior advocate Fali S. Nariman, for former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, enters the courtroom in his quiet fashion. He is accompanied by senior advocate KTS Tulsi, who represents two of the accused.

11.40 a.m.: Item 65 on the board is called. Arguments commence with Mr. Nariman driving right into the Karnataka High Court’s bail order. He says the High Court judge has committed an error. Says the High Court refers to the 2012 case law - State of Maharashtra Through CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Mumbai vs. Balakrishna Dattatrya Kumbhar - which deals with stay of conviction and not suspension of sentence.

11.42 a.m.: Mr. Nariman says using the 2012 case law to note that “corruption is a violation of human rights” in a limited question of suspension of sentence is wrong.

11.44 a.m.: Justice Dattu responds that the HC judge is merely saying that these are white-collar crimes. Mr. Nariman responds that a catena of Supreme Court decisions says “suspension of sentence when the criminal appeal is pending is a valuable right afforded to the accused, and is the norm.”

11.46 a.m.: Mr. Nariman picks up each judgment used by the Karnataka High Court to justify the refusal of suspension of sentence to counter that in all of them, the tenor of judicial reasoning is that suspension of sentence is the norm, and if denied will leave the exercise of criminal appeal “an exercise in futility” for the accused.

11.53 a.m.: Mr. Nariman argues that the Special Court convicted his client by “ ignoring a series of evidence on income and assessments placed before it to show that there is no case made out against her under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

12 noon: “But how many years did you take to complete the trial?” the Chief Justice interrupts Mr. Nariman.

“Far too many, My Lord,” Mr. Nariman concedes.

“If we pass the suspension of sentence now, you will take another two decades to finish the appeal,” Justice Dattu responds.

12.07 p.m.: Mr. Nariman says he will give an affidavit on behalf of his client that the appeal in the High Court will be completed in two months. There will be no delay on Ms. Jayalalithaa’s part.

“Should we not take into consideration that the conduct of the accused in the Special Court, in the High Court even in the Supreme Court... the case went on for years and years and years,” the CJI says.

12.09 p.m.: “This is a case in which the entire country has some considerations,” Mr. Nariman submits.

“We do not take all that into consideration. That does not matter for us,” the Chief Justice replies.

“I withdraw my comment,” Mr. Nariman pulls back.

12.10 p.m.: Mr. Nariman suggests to the Bench that “the lady can be confined to her house in Chennai for two months till the appeal is heard.” To this, the Chief Justice replies “we do not pass such unusual orders. Either we grant bail or not.” The Bench then goes into a huddle.

12.12 p.m.: Chief Justice Dattu asks within what time can Ms. Jayalalithaa file documents and be ready to fight her criminal appeal in the Karnataka High Court. Mr. Nariman replies “in six weeks.” He says the appeal hearing can be finished by February 2015. The Chief Justice says the court is willing to take his word for it and he does not have to file an affidavit. Mr. Tulsi submits he agrees with Mr. Nariman.

12.15 p.m.: Mr. Subramanian Swamy, the original complainant in the DA case, is given a chance to make his submissions. He says there has been sporadic violence in Tamil Nadu. Cartoons against the High Court judge have been put up.

He says the situation is “extraordinary” and that bail should not be granted. “She could have put a stop to the violence. One command from her was enough. But she has not. Her entire Cabinet is in Karnataka. Her Cabinet cannot take oath without crying,” Mr. Swamy submits.

Chief Justice Dattu turns to Mr. Nariman for an explanation. “All this will be communicated. I have already told them. A directive has to be indeed issued by her. They should maintain political morality,” Mr. Nariman assures the court.

12.20 p.m.: The Chief Justice tells Mr. Swamy: “An ‘extraordinary’ circumstance is when a person tries to run away to another country after conviction. Her party workers are unruly, what can she do? Is there anything to show that she ordered the violence?”

12.24 p.m.: “You prepare the paperbook [case documents and file] and keep it ready in two months. Then we will tell the High Court to hear the appeal in three months. But Mr. Nariman, if the paperbook is not ready in two months, we will not give you a day more,” the Chief Justice tells Mr. Nariman.

12.25 p.m.: A short order releasing the four accused on bail provided they present bond with solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the trial judge. The case to be listed on December 18.

“Keep the paperbook ready, Mr. Nariman on December 18. We will not give even one day’s extension [of bail],” the Chief Justice repeats amid the loud buzz of excitement from the crowd in the court.

Was Jayalalithaa let down by her team of lawyers?

 FP Staff  Oct 8, 2014 14:57 IST

With the Karnataka High Court rejecting former Tamil Nadu CM J Jayalalithaa's bail petition, her legal counsel, including senior advocate Ram Jethmalani, has come in for criticism by several legal experts for their handling of her bail plea.

This report in the Times of India quotes a senior legal expert as saying that the legal team of Jayalalithaa acted like 'novices', questioning the counsels move to approach the court registrar after a judge had earlier adjourned Jayalalithaa's bail petition.

And with the Karnataka High Court rejecting Jayalalithaa's bail plea on Tuesday, the counsel's decision to seek bail for all four accused at the same time also evoked criticism from senior lawyers, who, asquoted by the Times of India, were of the opinion that if Jaya had sought bail alone, there were more chances of her being granted bail and the three other accused could have benefited later by citing her example.

Another senior legal officer had this to say:

Their decision to seek bail for all four, including the relatively young and healthy V N Sudhakaran, simultaneously defies logic," a veteran prosecutor of a central law enforcement agency told TOI. "If a case involves more than one accused, it is not uncommon practice among lawyers to move the case of the fittest among all for bail first," he said. "In this case, they ought to have first bailed out Jayalalithaa, who had age, health and societal status on her side."

While Jethmalani as well as counsels for Sasikala and Sudhakaran questioned the trial court's verdict convicting them in the case, stating that the order was incorrect as 'the very basis of its evaluation of assets was flawed', HC Justice AV Chandrashekhara appeared to be in no mood to grant Jayalalithaa bail, observing that corruption amounted to a violation of human rights and led to economic imbalance.

His decision to deny bail could well be based on a series of recent Supreme Court orders that have shown no leniency towards cases of corruption among government officials.

Among those cases that the verdict could have been based on was a recent May judgement,  relating to a case involving BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and CBI Director, Ranjit Sinha, when a Constitution bench led by then Chief Justice of India RM Lodha declared that 'corruption is an enemy of the nation', as this report in The Hindu states.

The verdict, though, could not have been worse for supporters of AIADMK chief J Jayalalithaa, who have been protesting across the state of Tamil Nadu.

On Tuesday afternoon, when Jayalalithaa's bail plea came up for hearing at the Karnataka HC, supporters gathered at the party office in Chennai as well as at areas around the High Court, where section 144 has been imposed. At a little before 4 pm, when media channels reported that Jayalalithaa had been granted conditional bail, firecrackers were lit and wailing supporters were seen erupting in joy. But their happiness was short lived. Within the next half hour, while the HC judge completed reading out his verdict, it was known that Jayalalithaa was denied bail and would continue to remain in prison.

Soon, angry supporters resorted to violence, attacking businesses and vehicles owned by residents of the neighbouring state.

This article in the The Indian Express reports how journalists in the courtroom began informing their newsrooms about the verdict, even before it was read out.

"As the judge began dictating his order — noting at first the SPP’s stand — many of those present in the court were typing the message “bail granted” on their phones or passing on similar messages to others standing outside the hall. In the 10 minutes that the judge was dictating his orders, news spread that Jayalalithaa had been granted conditional bail. Many of the supporters broke into a jig outside the court premises."

Jayalalithaa's counsel is now likely to move the Supreme Court as early as Wednesday, challenging the High Court's decision to deny the former CM bail. But this decision has also come in for criticism with senior advocates comparing it to the likes of printing a cinema poster.

Disproportionate assets case: How it all began

BL 27sep !4

It was a complaint by Subramanian Swamy in a court here in 1996 that led to a probe against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J.Jayalalithaa in what later came to be known as the “disproportionate assets case” in which she was convicted by a Bangalore court today.

On June 14, 1996, Subramanian Swamy, then Janata Party leader, filed a complaint before the Principal Sessions Judge here alleging that Jayalalithaa had assets disproportionate to her known sources of income. Swamy was then the President of the Janata Party, which has since merged with the BJP.

The court directed the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption wing to investigate the complaint.

Subsequently, an FIR was registered by the police on September 18, 1996 and a probe was conducted, which also included search and seizure procedures at multiple locations, including Hyderabad. A charge sheet was filed and witnesses examined.

The witnesses who were recalled in court after the AIADMK returned to power in 2001, invited the censure of the Supreme Court later.

It was alleged that the value of Jayalalithaa’s assets increased to ₹66.65 crore when she demitted office in 1996 after a five-year stint.

Before assuming office as Chief Minister on July 1, 1991, the value of her assets was ₹2.01 crore, it was alleged.

Jayalalithaa had then declared that she was drawing only ₹1 as salary.

While Jayalalithaa was the first accused in the case, her aide Sasikala, her erstwhile foster son V N Sudhakaran and J Ilavarasi, a relative of Sasikala, are the other accused.

The case, in its 18-year journey, has seen many petitions filed by the accused involving questions, including that of law, procedures and relief in several courts such as the trial court, the High Courts of Madras and Karnataka, and the Supreme Court.

The case was transferred to Bangalore in 2003 by the Supreme Court on a petition filed by DMK leader K Anbazhagan in which Swamy, impleaded himself in his capacity as the original complainant. Swamy also supported the transfer of cases out of Tamil Nadu for a fair trial.

They had maintained that the trial would not be conducted in a free and fair manner if it was done in Tamil Nadu.

Transferring the case to Karnataka, an apex court bench, comprising Justice S N Variava and Justice H K Sema in its judgement on November 18, 2003 observed: “It does appear that the new public prosecutor (appointed by the AIADMK Government) is hand-in-glove with the accused, thereby, creating a reasonable apprehension of likelihood of failure of justice in the minds of the public at large. There is strong indication that the process of justice is being subverted. Free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution.”

Jayalalithaa fails to get immediate relief again

 

BANGALORE,OCT 1:  

Jailed AIADMK supremo Jayalalithaa will have to stay in prison for at least six more days as the vacation bench of the Karnataka High Court today posted for October 7 hearing on her pleas for suspension of the sentence and immediate bail in the disproportionate assets case.

As Jayalalithaa sought immediate relief, the court yesterday first posted the hearing for October 6 but hours later listed the matter for today after her counsel pleaded for urgent hearing.

When the matter came up before the vacation bench judge Justice Rathnakala, Jayalalithaa’s counsel Ram Jethmalani pleaded for suspending the sentence pending appeal under Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code and for her release on bail.

Section 389 states that pending any appeal by a convicted person, the Appellate Court may order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended. Also, if the person is in confinement, that he or she be released on bail, or on own bond.

(This article was published on October 1, 2014 In BL)