Chennai, March 31: The Supreme Court which is hearing the disproportionate assets case involving Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa today directed DMK leader, Anbazhaghan to file his arguments in writing.
The DMK leader represented by his advocate had commenced arguments yesterday challenging the acquittal of Jayalalithaa and others, but was stopped today as the Bench found it repetitive.
The Bench observed that the points being raised by him were already pointed out by Karnataka's counsels. B V Acharya and Dushyanth Dave.
The Bench also noted that similar points had been raised by senior BJP leader and the original complainant in the case, Subramanian Swamy yesterday and hence it was not necessary for them to hear the same points again. Further the Bench also questioned his locus-standi to argue the matter.
Give us written submissions:
The Supreme Court which had heard the DMK leader yesterday for a brief while however today said that the arguments were repetitive.
It directed him to file his written submissions and hand it over to the Bench. Anbazhagan is the one who had initially sought the transfer of the case from Tamil Nadu to any other state on the ground that there would be no fair investigation.
Once the case was transferred he has played the role of an intervenor in the case. In fact before the trial court in Bengaluru which had convicted Jayalalithaa and others, he had made a 270 page written submission in the court. However when the matter went up in appeal before the High Court, he was not permitted to argue the matter on the ground that he had no locus standi.
Anbazhagan would now file before the Supreme Court written arguments. He had filed a detailed written statement of 270 pages before the trial court in which he had mentioned about the facts of the case and how the income was disproportionate in nature. The same had been considered by the trial court when the order of conviction was passed.
However, the DMK leader had filed two petitions in the Supreme Court. In one of the petitions, he had sought the removal of Bhavani Singh as the Special Public Prosecutor in the case. In his second petition he had said that he should be permitted to assist the prosecution in the case.
He also made it clear that he had no political vendetta in the case and as a political opponent he could assume the role of a watch dog.
When Karnataka decided to challenge the order of acquittal in the Supreme Court, Anbazhagan had filed a rejoinder in a bid to assist the prosecution. He too like Karnataka had pointed out the calculation errors made by the Karnataka High Court which acquitted the Tamil Nadu chief minister.