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

PMO's views on special courts turns DMK against BJP

N Sathiya Moorthy in Madras

Anti-Bharatiya Janata Party political parties in Tamil Nadu have taken strong exception to the Prime Minister's Office seeking to dub the pending state government cases against All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazagham chief J Jayalalitha as a 'witch-hunt'.

The Tamil Maanila Congress, ally of the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, has even called for President K R Narayanan's intervention "to set right matters".

Trouble began with the PMO defending the Centre's decision to file a counter-affidavit in the Supreme Court contradicting its earlier stand in the special courts case involving Jayalalitha and her erstwhile ministerial colleagues.

Attorney-General Soli Sorabjee argued that the Centre alone has the responsibility under section 4(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to distribute work to various special courts, even if constituted by a state government.

The state government had reservations about this stand, and DMK members of Parliament met Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee in this regard even before Sorabjee made the Centre's stand known to the Supreme Court.

As they pointed out, when the same case was before the Madras high court, the Centre had dissociated itself from the case, submitting that the state government had appointed the special courts and it had nothing to do with them.

Legal luminaries, however, point out that the Centre's current stand is not inconsistent with the one taken in the high court, at least on pure technical grounds. The high court case basically challenged the constitution of the special courts, and the state government allegedly usurping the former's authority to distribute work among the three special courts appointed in this context.

The question of the Centre's responsibility under section 4(2) was not cited.

State government sources concede the 'oversight', and attribute it to lack of exposure in such technical areas, which had not been raised in other courts earlier. But they also argue that a 'technical cause' can at best delay the proceedings, which have been delayed already by the numerous interlocutory petitions and cases preferred by the accused, but cannot be cited as a cause for dropping 'serious criminal charges'.

As these sources point out, first a single judge, and then a division bench of the high court, did refer to the existence of a prima facie case against Jayalalitha and others.

If anything, the division bench, headed by outgoing Chief Justice M S Liberhan, even advised the accused to prove their innocence in the special courts.

The sources also refer to the Supreme Court declining to stay the special courts' proceedings while admitting Jayalalitha's appeal against the high court verdict. Even while hearing the attorney-general on section 4(2) of the PCA last week, the three-judge Supreme Court bench, reconstituted once after taking up the case, declined a stay. "This is proof of a 'prima facie' case, and technicalities, even if any, should not be allowed to come in the way," they argued.

The PMO's statement, reasserting the Centre's right under section 4(2), came in response to Chief Minister Muthuvel Karunanidhi's criticism of its 'changed stand', which, he said, was aimed at helping Jayalalitha and the others.

Not stopping with enunciating the legal position, the PMO statement on Saturday night said the Centre could not be a party to a 'witch-hunt' against individuals.

Bharatiya Janata Party vice-president Jana K Krishnamurthy has since sought to explain away the party's position, saying the Centre was not interested in the political battle of supremacy involving the DMK and the AIADMK. But he convinced no one. Even Tamil Nadu BJP sources say the PMO "over-reacted" and there was no need for the any reference to any 'witch-hunt' while discussing a purely legal position. Some are curious to know how the phrase came to be used in the PMO statement.

Various political parties have reacted to the 'witch-hunt' remark on expected lines. While the Pattali Makkal Katchi and the Marumalarchi DMK, both BJP allies, are maintaining silence, the DMK was prompt in referring to the PMO statement to justify its earlier charge of the Centre wanting to help Jayalalitha and the others out of the case.

The TMC and the Communist Party of India-Marxist too have taken a similar stand, with the former, through a resolution of its political affairs committee seeking presidential intervention as well.

Both the DMK and the TMC have repeatedly referred to the Centre's changing stand between the high court and the Supreme Court. "Just because the Centre has the power, it does not mean it should be used now," P Chidambaram, former Union minister and constitutional expert, said. "The PMO had no business to issue such a statement," he added, referring to the 'witch-hunt'.

Krishnamurthy's belated explanation has only added to the confusion. Seeking to dismiss the criticism of the Centre's stand and the PMO statement, he dwelt at some length on the DMK-AIADMK rivalry. "After all the trouble that the AIADMK gave us in the last so many months, Krishnamurthy's veiled support of the AIADMK's political position doesn't seem to have convinced anybody," a BJP leader said.

He added: "Taking a pro-AIADMK line and overdoing it might suit the national leadership, given Vajpayee's dependence on Jayalalitha's support. That was the kind of mistake the Congress committed for years, and see where that party is now in Tamil Nadu."

The 'witch-hunt' statement and Krishnamurthy's defence of the AIADMK have given the DMK a political cause to attack the BJP. The ruling party has lately been using the Tamil version of the Hindutva card, like temple archanas (prayers) in the local language, to cut into the BJP's vote bank.

The TMC too is seeking to cut into the BJP's votes, given their common 'nationalistic' approach and middle-class moorings. So is the Congress, though its state unit is ill-equipped to handle the evolving situation.

"The law should be allowed to take its course in the matter," was all that AICC spokesman Mani Shankar Aiyar, who is pro-AIADMK, would say.

A new angle has since been added to the issue with former Union minister Sedapatti R Muthiah, also facing corruption charges, producing a letter from Union Minister of State for Personnel 'Kadambur' R Janarthanam in a Madras court on Monday. Both Janarthanam and Muthiah belong to the AIADMK, and the letter mentions the Centre's position on section 4(2) and its decision to approach the Madras high court to exercise its powers under it.

But the special court hearing Muthiah's case declined to take cognisance of the letter. Said a source connected with the case: "The Centre's intention is becoming increasingly obvious, and no one seems to make any bones about it any more. The fact that the minister has chosen to write to an accused, even though he is a member of Parliament, without approaching the high court first is unpleasant, to say the least. Looks as if the Centre has not learnt its lessons from the [Enforcement Director M K] Bezbaruah case."

Tell us what you think of this report