The Hindu : No dishonesty in TANSI deal, counsel tells SC

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Sep 25, 2002

National

National

No dishonesty in TANSI deal, counsel tells SC

By J. Venkatesan

NEW DELHI Sept. 24. There was no "dishonesty, illegality or corrupt means" in the purchase of TANSI properties by the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, Jayalalithaa (who was a partner of Jaya Publications), asserted her counsel, K.K. Venugopal, in the Supreme Court today.

Continuing his submissions before a Bench, comprising Justice S. Rajendra Babu and Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi, Mr. Venugopal said the whole exercise was done through open tender and market value was paid for the property.

He said there was no cartel and no pressure was brought about in the whole exercise. Therefore it could not be said that she had obtained any pecuniary advantage. Also, there was no wrongful gain to her or wrongful loss caused to the government undertaking.

Counsel said that by no stretch of imagination could it be said that Ms. Jayalalithaa adopted "fraudulent means" as the purchase was made in good faith. Therefore, the charge under Sec. 13 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by a public servant would not be attracted. Similarly, the charge of "breach of trust" would also not apply in the case.

He contended that TANSI could not be called a government merely because the directors were appointed by the government. Referring to the Code of Conduct, viz. that no Minister should purchase government property, Mr. Venugopal asserted that the Code had no statutory sanction and hence was not enforceable.

He said that simply because the Ministers did not follow the guidelines, it could not be construed that they had committed a criminal offence as there was no prohibition in law.

Mr. Venugopal said the court could not go into the question of lifting of "corporate veil" as everything was done in a transparent manner. Besides, no loss was caused to the company. Moreover, there was no charge that any illegal means was adopted by her to purchase the property.

"She has already suffered enough injustice in this case. Hence the High Court order (acquitting her of all charges) should not be interfered with," he said, concluding his arguments.

Senior counsel for Ms. Sasikalaa, Vinod A. Bobde submitted that neither Ms. Sasikalaa nor Ms. Jayalalithaa was aware that the Code of Conduct was a legal restriction or prohibition upon bidding for and purchasing properties belonging to government, much less for properties belonging to companies such as TANSI.

He asserted that the Code was not a law as it was not enacted and it only provided an internal mechanism for its observance and did not provide for its enforceability. Referring to the applicability of Sec. 169 IPC, he said this provision did not by itself refer to any person or property nor did it prohibit bidding or purchasing of property.

Counsel also maintained that no evidence, cogent or otherwise had been led to prove that Ms. Sasikalaa was guilty of any of the offences charges. He said the High Court order should not be interfered with.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National