Karnataka govt still undecided over appeal against Jayalalithaa acquittal // What can Justice Kumaraswamy do about 'errors' in Jayalalithaa judgment? // Do our senior judges know what is at stake here? Certainly not their ability to count..
NB: If neither the petitioner nor the Karnataka government appeal against this judgement, we may conclude that there are some amongst our high elite who are no longer shy of committing daylight robbery in full view of the public. It's not that they can't count. It's what they are counting that is the question. Who exactly is guilty of contempt of court here? DS
Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on Friday said
the state government is yet to decide on filing an appeal in the Supreme Court
against acquittal of Jayalalithaa who is set to stage a comeback as Tamil
Nadu Chief Minister after her acquittal in the disproportionate assets
case. "We have not yet taken any decision; ...law department
is examining, they are studying the judgement, we will take a decision after
getting inputs from them," Siddaramaiah said. "We will consider the
opinion of Special Public Prosecutor B V Acharya and also the opinion from Law
department and the Advocate General and then take a decision," he told
reporters in New Delhi. Responding to a question, he said he had not contacted
the party (Congress) high command on the issue.
The Karnataka High Court gave a clean chit to the AIADMK
chief and three others, clearing them of "all charges" in the
19-year-old case on 11 May, paving the way for return of Jayalalithaa, who
was chosen as legislature party leader by her party in Chennai on Friday, as
CM. Meanwhile, Advocate General Ravivarma Kumar has said that he
has advised the state government to file an appeal. "The judgement has
flaws, so appeal has to be filed. I have advised the Karnataka government that
as Karnataka is the sole prosecutor, it has to file an appeal," Kumar told
a television channel. He said "as per law there is a 90-day time from
the day the High Court gave its verdict, to file an appeal." Karnataka Law
and Parliamentary Affairs Minister T B Jayachandra had earlier this week said
that the government would take "some more days" to decide on filing
an appeal in the Supreme Court. B V Acharya has also made public his advice that he has asked
Karnataka government to file an appeal as it was a "fit case" to do
so.
The acquittal of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J
Jayalalithaa by Karnataka High Court Justice CR Kumaraswamy in a
Disproportionate Assets case has attracted criticism with regard to
mathematical errors in the judgement. There exists a provision within the law
to alter or review the verdict though. Section 362 of the CrPc says: "Save as
otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in
force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a
case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or
arithmetical error." There has been much debate in political circles and on
social media on the repercussions for the former Tamil Nadu CM if the Karnataka
government decides to file an appeal. Legal experts have said although Justice
Kumaraswamy cannot alter the verdict, alterations can be made in the judgment
if clerical or mathematical errors were found.
The section may thus allow Kumaraswamy to review the
verdict after many have cited “errors” in the judgment. In a press statement,
the DMK has said that they will file an appeal and have asked the Karnataka
goverment to file an appeal as they had been the public prosecution in the
case. BJP leader Subramanian Swamy has also questioned the judgment calling it
a “tragedy of arithmetic errors”. The public prosecutor in the case BV Acharya
says that he has noticed the error too. "The DA will come to 16.34 crores
as against 2 crore. Therefore, there is a glaring arithmetical error in terms
of calculation. Fundamental mistake is in totaling 10 items of the loan,” he
says, adding, “Since this glaring mistake has come to my notice, I'm
considering all options available. If SC appeal is decided, this will be an
excellent point.” He added that a stay of the judgment is a “matter of
deep consideration