Questioning the Karnataka Government’s appeal in the disproportionate assets case, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa responded on Thursday by saying Karnataka had no locus standi to prosecute the case.
It is “interference in the internal affairs of Tamil Nadu,” she said.
In a six-page document containing the major points which will be argued on February 2 in the Supreme Court, Jayalalithaa said, “Karnataka has no legislative power in respect of the affairs of the State of Tamil Nadu and consequently has no power to prosecute the alleged offender in the Supreme Court for offences committed in Tamil Nadu against the State of Tamil Nadu.”
She also highlighted Article 162 of the Constitution, which prescribes that the executive power of the State Executive is co-extensive with that of the State Legislature.
Responding to Jayalalithaa's appeal, BV Acharya, the Special Public Prosecutor in the case told The News Minute, "This isn't the first time she has questioned our locus standi. It has been proved before also that Karnataka has powers to prosecute and which is why the Supreme Court itself gave the state powers to appoint the SPP in the case. We cannot keep re-educating the educated."
Jayalalithaa has said that Karnataka government was given the role as a “prosecutor” in the case after the case was transferred in 2004. She said that other than this the Karnataka government has no involvement in the case as it is neither the de facto complainant nor the aggrieved party and the alleged crime had not been committed against Karnataka.
She added that the main reason for the transfer of the case to Karnataka was to facilitate fair trial and since that had been achieved, there was nothing left for the Karnataka government to do in this case.
Jayalalithaa said that only Tamil Nadu has the “exclusive jurisdiction” to file the special leave petition or appeal against the Karnataka High Court judgment of acquittal on May 11, 2015 as she is a “public servant of the State of Tamil Nadu”.
In the six-page document, she questioned the Supreme Court on why income tax assessments carried out by the High Court based on evidences and witnesses should be re-opened. The Chief Minister further asked the Supreme Court why it should now review findings already determined by the High Court. She also included that there is no cogent evidence to show that N. Sasikala, J. Elavarasi and V.N. Sudhakaran got their wealth through Jayalalithaa.
Jayalalithaa asked whether Karnataka was allowed to maintain the petition against the High Court's judgment setting aside the confiscation of assets of five companies which the Karnataka government alleged were owned by the accused persons, that too when there were no charges leveled under the Benami Prohibition Act.