New Delhi, April 19: The arguments in the J Jayalalithaa disproportionate case continued before the Supreme Court today.The arguments today were advanced by the counsel for Sasikala Natrajan, Ilavarasi and Sudhakaran who were also acquitted in the same case by the Karnataka High Court.
Arguments began with the counsel for Sasikala Natrajan stating that it was wrong to say that she was a proxy. Her advocate also argued that Sasikala Natrajan did not behave like a extra constitutional authority. The allegation that her proximity to Jayalalithaa was used by her is wrong.
The entire prosecution is flawed. The prosecution had completely failed to prove before the High Court charges of abetment and possession of disproportionate assets.
There has been a clear finding given by the High Court and I wonder why this needs to be looked into again, Sasikala Natrajan's counsel also told the Bench. The investigators have been proven completely wrong and that is why we were acquitted says Sasikala Natrajan's counsel in Supreme Court.
The allegations that I was running a proxy government is not right.
Karnataka to file counter:
During the course of the arguments the counsel indicated that he would conclude arguments by Thursday. Since the facts of the case and the appeal contents are identical, it would not be necessary to advance extensive arguments.
Moreover counsel for Jayalalithaa, L Nageshwar had made detailed submissions before the Supreme Court two weeks back in which the entire contentions in the appeal were covered.
Since Karnataka is the prosecuting agency and the appellant state, it would be given another chance to argue. Karnataka is likely to make a quick submission apart from handing over its written counter statements to the Bench comprising Justices P C Ghose and Amitava Roy.
Following this the Bench will take up a petition that had been filed by an advocate questioning the jurisdiction of the court in hearing an appeal by Karnataka. However advocates part of this case say that it may be a short hearing.
If the Supreme Court had to decide on jurisdiction it would have taken up the matter immediately and not after the conclusion of the arguments. Once this petition is heard the Bench will reserve its orders.