'Non-application of mind will not mean corruption'

By A. Subramani

CHENNAI, NOV. 12. Though Ms. Jayalalithaa had signed a Government Order which was outside her jurisdiction, it was only due to non- application of mind and the prosecution cannot go beyond and infer something more from it, her counsel in the `Pleasant Stay Hotel case appeal' argued today. ``Non-application of mind is a far cry from corruption, illegal means and abuse of power,'' Mr. K.K. Venugopal said.

Continuing his arguments before Mr. Justice N. Dinakar, he said unless there was dishonesty in the act which was subsequently challenged or struck down, every such action of public servants without application of mind would become punishable offence. ``Dishonesty and `mens rea' (common intention) should be attached to the act which turns out to be against public interest,'' he maintained.

``I should know that what I am doing is dishonest and with full knowledge and interest I exercise my power to benefit somebody,'' he elaborated. Taking the punitive provisions of the Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act without `dishonesty' will play havoc with the public services, Mr. Venugopal argued.

Mr. Venugopal said there was nothing to show that Ms. Jayalalithaa knew and attempted to favour Mr. Rakesh Mittal and Mr. Palai Shanmugam, who were promoting the Pleasant Stay Hotel project. ``There was no wilful and deliberate attempt on her part.''

Earlier, the defence counsel accused the then Under- Secretary, Mr. J.V. Chandrasekaran, who was aware of the then Local Administration Secretary, Mr. A.C. Cyriac's additional note meant for the Chief Minister, of having failed to intervene and prevent publication of the G.O. relaxing development rules to help the Pleasant Stay Hotel promoters build additional floors.

At some moment he should have said `no', Mr. Venugopal argued, adding that had the additional note prepared by Mr. Cyriac been brought to the Chief Minister's notice she would have reconsidered the order any number of times. ``Now, I (Ms. Jayalalithaa) am being prosecuted for not doing something, which I am not even aware of.''

But at this stage, Mr. Justice Dinakar intervened and said, ``I do not think I can accept your arguments. But for your (Ms. Jayalalithaa) approval the G.O. could never have been issued.''

``The Special Judge totally failed to apply his mind by not mentioning in his order the genesis of the impugned G.O., which came into being due to the advice and recommendation of the then Advocate-General and the Additional Government Pleader,'' Mr. Venugopal noted.

He pointed out that in the course of arguments in a writ petition filed by the Palani Hill Conservation Council, the Bench had made a query, following which the AG and the AGP ``who were Government law officers'' advised the Government to gazette the amendment notification and send a copy to the court before a specified date.

Mr. Venugopal will continue his defence arguments tomorrow.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Southern States
Previous : 'TNHB officials should comply with agreement
           terms'
Next     : Shortage of drivers, conductors