Jayalalitha and the poll

Sir, - Your Editorial, ``Ms. Jayalalitha and the poll'' (April 14): While, as you have observed, the larger legal reasoning in Mr. Justice Malai Subramanian's ruling is likely to come under intense scrutiny, a few commonsense questions deserve to be addressed. These are: In view of Mr. Justice Subramanian's interpretation of the Code in respect of ``sentence'' and ``conviction,'' assuming that Ms. Jayalalitha's appeal against the Special Court verdict were to have been placed before him, would he have declined to suspend the ``sentence'' and confirm the bail granted her by the Special Court? For, suspension of ``sentence'' according to him would have amounted to suspension of ``conviction''? It is extremely unlikely. There appears to be no case in which a person convicted of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to imprisonment has been denied bail, pending disposal of appeal.

When the Supreme Court ruled that, in corruption cases, ``conviction'' should not be stayed, does it not follow that, while ``sentence'' can be stayed and bail granted, it is ``conviction'' which cannot be stayed? In view of Mr. Justice Subramanian's observation about ``sentencing'' and ``conviction,'' would it mean that the earlier order of another single judge, suspending the ``sentence'' and confirming Ms. Jayalalitha's bail, was not consistent with the Code and the law?

V. Krishnamachari,

Mumbai

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : The U.N.'s future political role
Next     : Crime and punishment