Sasikala’s Swear­ing-in Un­cer­tain After PIL

There is no of­fi­cial word from Raj Bha­van on the swear­ing-in; gov­er­nor Rao left for Mum­bai from New Delhi

The Economic Times - - Pure Politics -

Chen­nai/New Delhi Po­lit­i­cal un­cer­tainty gripped Chen­nai, a day after AIADMK gen­eral sec­re­tary VK Sasikala was unan­i­mously elected the leader of her leg­is­la­ture party. There was no of­fi­cial word from Raj Bha­van on the swear­ing-in and gov­er­nor C Vidyasagar Rao who was in New Delhi left for Mum­bai. Queer­ing the pitch for Sasikala, a pub­lic in­ter­est lit­i­ga­tion was filed on Mon­day that sought the Supreme Court’s in­ter­ven­tion to pre­vent her tak­ing over as the CM. The PIL wanted the SC to rest rai n Sasi ka l a f rom bei ng sworn in as CM on the grounds that the court was likely to pro­nounce within a week the ver­dict in a cor­rup­tion case in which she and the late J Jay­alalithaa were accused. The PIL was filed by Chen­nai res­i­dent Senthil Ku­mar, gen­eral sec­re­tary of NGO Satta Pan­chayat Iyakkam, hours after the apex court in­di­cated it could de­liver its judge­ment on the ap­peals chal­leng­ing the ac­quit­tal of Jay­alalithaa and Sasikala in the 19-year-old dis­pro­por­tion­ate as­sets case.

Sasikala, along with Jay­alalithaa’s other aides VN Sud­hakaranandJElavarasi­were booked un­der var­i­ous sec­tions of Pre­ven­tion of Cor­rup­tion Act and IPC for amass­ing wealth dis­pro­por­tion­ate to their known sources of in­come in 1997. The trial of the case was shifted by Supreme Court to Ben­galuru on a pe­ti­tion filed by a DMK leader and the court there had con­victed them on Septem­ber 27, 2014. How­ever, the Kar­nataka High Court had re­versed the Spe­cial Court’s judg­ment on May 11, 2015. The Kar­nataka gov­ern­ment had filed an ap­peal in the Supreme Court.

The PIL is likely to be heard on Tuesday morn­ing. Ku­mar con­tended that if Sasikala will be con- victed and forced to re­sign, there was pos­si­bil­ity of ri­ots erupt­ing all over Tamil Nadu. He said law and or­der may worsen in such an even­tu­al­ity as the state was al­ready fac­ing a “des­per­ate sit­u­a­tion” due to cy­clone, de­mon­eti­sa­tion and death of Jay­alalithaa. The pe­ti­tioner claimed in case the ap­peal against her ac­quit­tal re­sulted in con­vic­tion, AIADMK work­ers may once again protest and dis­turb nor­mal life of Tamil Nadu. The pe­ti­tioner said he filed the plea in the in­ter­est of peo­ple of Tamil Nadu and to main­tain the peace in the state. Ear­lier on Mon­day, a bench headed by Jus­tice PC Ghose asked se­nior ad­vo­cate Dushyant Dave, rep­re­sent­ing Kar­nataka, to wait for a week after he made a men­tion be­fore it re­gard­ing the de­lay in pro­nounce­ment of the ver­dict in the DA case.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.