Noting that “political opponents are watchdogs of the government in power,” DMK leader K. Anbazhagan moved the Supreme Court on Friday challenging two separate orders of the Karnataka High Court rejecting his request to drop Bhavani Singh as special public prosecutor in the appeals filed by former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa and other accused in a Rs. 66.65-crore disproportionate assets case and allow him to assist the prosecution.
On February 5, the High Court dismissed Mr. Anbazhagan’s plea to help the prosecution side in the appeals while observing that he was a “political opponent” and had no statutory right.
Again, on February 11, it held that Mr. Singh was entitled to appear as special public prosecutor without any written authority.
My view not coloured by vendetta: DMK leader
Former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa and three co-accused were convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act for amassing wealth disproportionate to their income during her tenure as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu between 1991 and 1996.
In one of the two special petitions filed separately through counsel V. Gnana Pragasam, DMK General Secretary K. Anbazhagan recounted how he had in 2013 given “a representation to the Government of Karnataka and the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka against Bhavani Singh detailing the allegations of collusion with the accused.”
The same year saw the Supreme Court leave open the issue of enquiry into his allegations against Mr. Singh, the petition said.
Seeking a stay of the February 11 order of the High Court, Mr. Anbazhagan submitted Mr. Singh had filed a strongly worded response in the HC to Ms. Jayalalithaa’s plea to suspend her jail sentence and grant her bail. But in less than seven days, on October 7, 2014, Mr. Singh turned up in court only to “openly” favour Ms. Jayalalithaa’s plea.
The petition said the original notification of February 2, 2013 on the appointment of Mr. Singh as prosecutor was limited to the trial stage and it cannot be “stretched” to include the appellate stage.
In his second petition seeking intervention in the High Court appeals as a ‘party interested’ and stay of the February 5 order, Mr. Anbazhagan denied that his view was coloured by “political vendetta.”
The DMK leader said he was allowed by the trial court to assist the prosecution and even file written submissions.
“In a democracy, political opponents play an important role both inside and outside the House. Being a political opponent, he [Anbazhagan] is a vitally interested party in the running of the government and in administration of criminal justice of a State. They are the mouthpiece to ventilate the grievances of the public at large,” Mr. Anbazhagan contended.
He argued that his request to assist the prosecution in the appeals before the High Court cannot be “brushed aside on the allegation of political vendetta.”
