Madras High Court Advocates Association moves the Madras High Court challenging the list of 9 persons forwarded by the collegium for appointment as judges

The Madras High Court Advocates’ Association (MHAA) has filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court seeking a direction to the Supreme Court Secretary-General and others to send back the list of nine persons recommended for filling vacancies of judges in the Madras High Court.

 

Madras High Court

At present, there are 18 vacancies in the High Court. The sanctioned strength of judges is 60. A similar situation was witnessed in January last year when a PIL was filed seeking the return of a list of 12 names suggested then by the High Court collegium. The list was ultimately sent back.

In the present petition, the MHAA secretary, S.Arivazhagan, submitted that the High Court collegium had recommended nine names for appointment. The association had requested the court to consider persons from unrepresented communities in strict compliance with the constitutional mandate of achieving social justice.

The association said the present collegium system of selecting judges was much criticised by experts and advocates. Ultimately, the sufferers were the litigant public. It was being openly spoken at the Bar that some judges appointed were indecisive due to non-exposure in various fields of law. Despite the increase in the number of judges, quality and quantity of disposals had remained unsatisfactory. This was because in the collegium system there was no yardstick for selecting suitable candidates. The process of consultation was conspicuously absent.

The petitioner said the association wanted the entire vacancies to be filled up by upholding social justice. The Association has sought for a direction to the authorities concerned to drop the present move of appointing nine persons as judges to the 9 vacancies in the Madras High Court and for a direction to them to redo the same afresh, after taking into consideration the demands of the advocates.

 

B.S Yeddyurappa cannot claim immunity from prosecution on the ground of lack of sanction as defrauding the exchequer is not part of a public servant's official duties, submits the CBI before the Supreme Court

Opposing former Karnataka chief minister B.S Yeddyurappa’s plea for quashing of the charge-sheet against him and his two sons, the CBI told the Supreme Court on Friday that it had evidence to back its charges accusing the former CM of unilaterally de-notifying a piece of land marked for acquisition by Bangalore Development Authority for Arkavati Layout, and then allowing his sons and son-in-law to sell it at an exorbitant price to South West Mining Ltd.

 

Yeddyurappa has sought quashing of the cases registered by the CBI against him on the ground of lack of sanction from the Governor for prosecuting him.

 

Rebutting this contention of Mr. Yeddyurappa, the Central Bureau of Investigation has submitted before the Supreme Court that former Karnataka chief minister B.S Yeddyurappa cannot claim immunity from prosecution on the ground of lack of sanction as defrauding the exchequer was not part of a public servant's official duties. 

 

File picture : former Karnataka Chief Minister B.S. Yeddyurappa

Under the Criminal Procedure Code, the governor's sanction is required to prosecute any public servant, including chief minister or other ministers. Yeddyurappa is accused of granting land at throwaway prices and hastening environmental clearances to certain companies in return for funds worth crores of rupees being put into some family run trusts. He is also accused of imposing a ban on mining imports into the state to benefit some companies.

These actions are alleged to have cost the state exchequer a loss of an estimated Rs 876.90 crore. CBI filed a chargesheet in May 2012 under court directions against Yeddyurappa, his sons BY Vijayendra and BY Raghavendra and son-in-law RN Sohan Kumar. 

Among those who figure in the chargesheet are Prerna Educational and Social Trust, JSW Steel, South West Mining Ltd and certain other local companies which paid unspecified amounts into the trusts. 

Yeddyurappa later moved the Apex court seeking quashing of the charge sheet in the case on  the ground that the governor's sanction was not obtained, as needed under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code to prosecute a public servant. CBI has stoutly opposed his contentions in its affidavit filed on Friday. 

The CBI also said in its affidavit filed before the Court that it had documentary evidence to prove that the Yeddyurappa family-run Prerana Educational and Social Trust had received Rs 10 crore in donation from JSW Steel Ltd through various firms as a quid pro quo for favours shown by the then CM to JSW. "It is a matter which needs to be taken to its logical end," the agency said.

 

The CBI has also claimed that Yedduurappa had misused his official position as urban development minister to de-notify government land to enable his family members to purchase plots and later sell them at concessional rates in return for quid pro quo investments in the trusts. "Yeddyurappa was directly involved in the de-notification of the land, which was purchased by his kin by resorting to forgery and other illegal means and got undue benefits. Yeddyurappa himself took the decision to de-notify the land, bypassing the De-notification Committee which alone was competent to consider requests for de-notification of land marked for acquisition," the investigation agency said. 

 Yeddyurappa has been charged with criminal conspiracy and of committing offences punishable under Sections 13(1(d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.