Jaya's portrait: HC observes it cannot interfere

Press Trust of India  |  Chennai 

The today observed it cannot interfere with the decision of Assembly P Dhanapal to put up a portrait of late in the legislature. In her oral observations, also said if the people did not like the decision of the to unveil the portrait, it will reflect in the next elections. The who would be elected by the next assembly will take a decision on the matter, she said during the hearing of a PIL by DMK MLA J Anbazhagan seeking removal of the portrait, unveiled on February 10. Hearing the matter along with Justice Abdul Quddhose, the made the observations after for the petitioner contended that the had taken the decision to unveil the portrait without consulting the committees concerned. Anbazhagan had moved the court on February 12 barely an hour after the portrait of was unveiled in the by Dhanapal and sought its removal on the grounds that she was found guilty on corruption charges. When the matter came up for hearing today, senior P Wilson argued that displaying the portrait of a person who was found guilty of corruption will set a precedent. Referring to various judgements, he submitted that the money of tax payers cannot be used for "illegal activities which are against the provisions of Constitution". The asked the what way the petitioner's rights had been violated to invoke the high court's powers to issue writs. She made it clear that the court cannot interfere with the decision of the in this matter. The court's interference was needed in the case of disqualification of 18 AIADMK MLAs as the personal rights of the legislators had been affected (by the Speaker's order disqualifying them), Justice Banerjee said. The court has recently reserved its orders on the petitions filed by the 18 disqualified MLAs, loyal to sidelined T T V Dhinakaran, challenging the Speaker's order of last year. The bench then posted the petition seeking removal of the portrait to March 3 for further hearing. According to the petitioner, was convicted by a special court on graft charges.

Later the same was set aside by the high court and on appeal the found all the accused guilty of the charges. In view of her demise, appeals against 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, he contended.

(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

First Published: Mon, February 26 2018. 21:30 IST
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU