Newindpress.com

SC stays seer case trial; says 'TN has no business in Pondy'

Tuesday May 2 2006 00:00 IST

NEW DELHI: Supreme Court has on Monday stayed the trial of Sankararaman murder case currently underway in Pondicherry wherein Sri Jayendra Saraswati, Sankaracharya of Kanchi is one of the accused, until further orders.

A Bench comprising Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice D K Jain said: "Tamil Nadu has no business in Pondicherry (to conduct the prosecution in this case). You cannot go and attack. Once the case is transferred, Tamil Nadu's hands off," the Bench remarked.

The Bench passed the orders in the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Sri Jayendra Saraswati, Sankaracharya of Kanchi, challenging the appointment of a public prosecutor by Tamil Nadu to conduct the trial.

As soon as the Bench began hearing the case, senior counsel for the petitioner Fali Nariman asked the Bench whether Tamil Nadu can appoint a public prosecutor in Pondicherry.

The Bench said that if the trial is being conducted in Pondicherry, it has to be Pondicherry. "But, they say 'No,' that has to be decided by the Supreme Court, averred Nariman.

To a suggestion from the Bench whether an independent prosecutor, not from Tamil Nadu and from Pondicherry would be okay, Nariman welcomed it saying "Excellent, Please have somebody independent."

To objections from Rajeev Dhavan, senior counsel representing the Tamil Nadu government, the Bench remarked, "How can Tamil Nadu prosecutor conduct proceedings in Pondicherry?"

Rajeev Dhavan replied that as per some of the apex court judgments, the accused cannot choose their prosecutor. Pondicherry has not come in appeal contending that their prosecutor was not accepted. The one who moved the apex court is the accused in the trial, he pointed out.

The Bench said that once the case is transferred to Pondicherry, it is the duty of the Pondicherry government to prosecute.

At this, Rajeev Dhavan cited some of the cases viz., Zaheera Shaiekh, Anbazagan, wherein public prosecutors of the original states conducted the prosecution.

To this, the Bench said that these were cases wherein the apex court issued specific directions that the original state should conduct the prosecution.

There was a query as to who will appeal if the accused are acquitted. It is Tamil Nadu, contended Rajeev Dhavan. Pondycherry, averred Fali Nariman.

Nariman said that it is the transferee government which shall conduct the prosecution.

The Bench posted the case to the second week of July for further hearing.

At this stage Nariman pointed out that the trial is scheduled to begin from June 6 and the same prosecutor appointed by Tamil Nadu shall conduct the trial and this should be stopped. Responding to this, the Bench passed the orders staying the trial until further orders.

Flashback

The apex court had transferred the case to Pondicherry on October 26, 2005 after accepting the plea of the petitioners that they have apprehension that they would not get a fair trial in Tamil Nadu.

In the present SLP, the seer had contended that the jurisdiction of Tamil Nadu does not extend to appointing a Special Public Prosecutor for the Union Territory of Pondicherry and challenged the same before the Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry.

However, the judge on January 25, 2006, ruled that Tamil Nadu has jurisdiction and can appoint its prosecutor.

On appeal, a single judge of the Madras High Court also affirmed the verdict of the Principal Sessions Judge of Pondicherry on February 7, 2006.

The seer moved the apex court challenging this order of the High Court.

HC tells TN Govt to provide certificate to
Kanchi Mutt college

Chennai, April 13 (PTI): The Madras High Court today set aside a Tamil Nadu government order denying an essentiality certificate to a Kanchi Mutt Trust for running a medical college in the city and directed authorities concerned to issue the certificate within four weeks.

Allowing a petition filed by the Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam Charitable Trust which has set up a medical college and hospital here, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice Prabha Sridevan said 'the impugned order of the state government can not be sustained and is quashed'.

In the petition, the Trust contended that despite furnishing the work completion certificate and the names of teaching and non-teaching staff who had been employed to the state government the essentiality certificate had been denied.

The Trust submitted that it had incurred a huge expenditure of over Rs 85 crore on the college and hospital.

The Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Institute of Medical Sciences and Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Sankara Hospital were established in 2003 with a view to providing medical education at affordable costs to deserving students in the middle and lower income groups.

The Medical Council of India was also still to accord approval to the college