Madras High Court Chief Justice Indira Banerjee observed that it was her personal opinion that portraits of convicted people should not be displayed in public offices but questioned how could the court interfere in decisions taken by an assembly's speaker.

A file photo of the Madras High Court

Chennai:

The CJ made the oral observation when a plea by DMK MLA Anbazhagan seeking removal of former chief minister J Jayalalithaa's portrait from the assembly, came up.

The first bench comprising the chief justice and Justice Abdul Quddhose posted the matter for orders to Monday.

The opposition DMK had moved the court seeking removal of the the portraits on the ground that she was found guilty on corruption charges.

Senior counsel P Wilson, who appeared on behalf of Anbazhagan, argued that a plea seeking removal of photos and the name of Jayalalithaa displayed and mentioned in government offices, buildings, public sector undertakings and government schemes by the state government is still pending.

When this was so, the portrait was unveiled in a hurried manner, the counsel said.

The plea alleged that the speaker has "arbitrarily" taken a decision on February 10 to unveil a portrait of Jayalalithaa in the assembly hall on February 12 in the presence of the chief minister and the deputy chief minister.

According to the petitioner, Jayalalithaa was convicted by a special court on graft charges.

Later, the same was set aside by the Karnataka High Court and on appeal, the Supreme Court found all the accused guilty of the charges. In view of her demise, appeals against Jayalalithaa were treated as abated, the petitioner said.

At the same time, the co-accused were convicted; sentenced to four years imprisonment and properties belonging to them were ordered to be attached, the DMK counsel said.

Advocate Vijay Narayan, who argued on behalf of the government, submitted that Jayalalithaa was not convicted by the Supreme Court.

The portrait was unveiled in the assembly as per the powers provided to the speaker and if the petitioner does not want to see it, he may avoid seeing it, he said.

Counsel for the DMK submitted that merely because she was not convicted by the apex court, "one cannot say that she is not accused".

The Supreme Court in its verdict very clearly said she is accused, the counsel argued.

The bench then posted the matter for orders to Monday.