J JAYALALITHA Vs. U O I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions.

(2.) These appeals arise out of the common judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in a batch of writ petitions filed by Ms. Jayalalitha former Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu, her cabinet colleagues, some MLAs. of the AIADMK party and some officers of the Government, challenging the validity of Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in so far as it empowers the State Government to appoint as many special Judges as may be necessary "for such case or group of cases" as may be specified in the notification and also the notification dated 30-4-1997, whereby three additional Courts of City Civil and Sessions Judges, Chennai were established and the Judges of those Courts were appointed as Special Judges to try exclusively on day-to-day basis the criminal cases filed against those writ petitioners under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court by two separate judgments of the two learned Judges who constituted the Division Bench, dismissed the writ petitions, by holding that Section 3 in so far as it empowers the Government to appoint special Judges "for such case or group of cases" is constitutionally valid and not violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It also held that the establishment of three additional Sessions Courts at Chennai and appointment of Judges of those Courts as Special Judges by the notification dated 30-4-1997 is also valid and that in no way contravenes Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution nor does that stand vitiated by mala fides either factual or legal. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court the appellants (except the appellant in appeal arising out of SLP No. 2805 of 1998) have filed these appeals. Subsequent to the filing of the SLPs, out of which these appeals arise, the Central Government, in exercise of its powers under sub-section (1) of Section 3 issued a notification on 5-2-1999 appointing the XIth XIIth and XIIIth Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Chennai as special Judges for trial of offences specified in sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act and investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) and committed within the area comprised in the Chennai Sessions Division. By another notification of the same date issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, the Central Government specified some special Judges in the city of Chennai to be the Judges who shall try the offences specified in sub-section (1) of Section 3. This notification was issued by the Central Government as it was of the view that where there are more special Judges than one for any area it is the exclusive power of the Central Government to specify which cases shall be tried by which Special Judge of that area and, therefore, it was not proper and legal for the State Government to make allotment of cases amongst those three special Judges by the said notification dated 30-4-1997. The appellants were happy with the said notification and, therefore, obviously did not challenge the same. However, feeling aggrieved by the said notification, the Advocate General of Tamil Nadu and one Mr. M. A. Chinnaswamy an Advocate practising in this Court have filed writ petitions in this Court challenging the legality and propriety of the said notification. One organisation known as VOICE (Consumer Care Council) a voluntary consumer organisation, which had in the past taken up various public causes by way of public interest litigation, filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Madras challenging the said notification. The High Court dismissed the writ petition observing that "the matter relating to the establishment of the special Courts under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act by notification by the State Government and ancillary issues are now pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, it is not desirable or appropriate for us to go into the question as to whether the Central Government has jurisdiction to issue such notification and to consider its effect, pending decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and pass any order or issue notice to the other side at this stage. Admittedly, the matter is sub judice and seized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of the above facts, we do not consider it proper to comment at this stage." VOICE, therefore, filed special leave petition in this Court and considering its credential for initiating a public interest litigation of this type, we have granted leave to it to prefer an appeal against the said order passed by the High Court.

(3.) As regards Writ Petition No. 93 of 1999 filed by the Advocate General of the State of Tamil Nadu, the respondents therein have challenged the locus standi of the Advocate General to file it. From what is stated therein, it becomes clear that the writ petition is filed by him not in his personal capacity as an enlightened citizen or as an advocate interested in proper working of the Courts but in his capacity as the Advocate General of Tamil Nadu. He had appeared on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu before the Madras High Court in the writ petitions filed by Ms. Jayalalitha and others. The State of Tamil Nadu has not filed any petition challenging the notification issued by the Central Government nor it has authorised the Advocate General to do so. It is, therefore, difficult to appreciate how the Advocate General of Tamil Nadu could file this writ petition challenging the notification dated 5-2-1999 issued by the Central Government under S. 4(2) of the P. C. Act. Realising this difficulty in his way Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Advocate-General submitted that the writ petitioner may be treated as an intervenor and be heard on the important questions of law which arise in this case. We are not in favour of entertaining the writ petition filed by the Advocate General but we have permitted him to assist this Court as an intervenor only.