PIL filed to stay VK Sasikala’s swearing-in

New Delhi: A public interest writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court to restrain AIADMK chief V.K. Sasikala from swearing in as the chief minister of Tamil Nadu till the pronouncement of the verdict in the Rs 66-crore disproportionate assets case. On Monday, a bench headed by Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose informed Karnataka senior counsel Dushyant Dave that the verdict would be pronounced next week. The court will rule whether Ms Sasikala, a close aide of former Tamil Nadu CM Jayalalithaa, is guilty of corruption charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, in the 21-year-old disproportionate assets case.

Anticipating the judgment, Satta Panchayat Iyakkam, a non-governmental organisation has filed this PIL through its general secretary Senthil Kumar. The petition is to be mentioned on Tuesday morning for urgent hearing.

The petitioner said the petition is being filed in the interest of the people of Tamil Nadu and to maintain peace in the state in the event of the apex court convicting Sasikala. It said, “If Ms Sasikala is elected as CM by her loyalists and if she is convicted and forced to resign her post, there is a possibility that riots will erupt all over Tamil Nadu. The state is already facing a desperate situation due to the cyclone, demonetisation and death of Jayalalithaa and hence it is imperative that no fresh crisis is created.”

It brought to the court’s notice rumors circulating that the Central government had interfered in this case for a favourable order with an intent to defame the judiciary and create confusion in the minds of the common public. In this situation, the credibility of judiciary is at stake, it said.

Mr Dave told the bench, “It is my unpleasant duty to remind the bench that the verdict reserved on June 7, 2016 would be pronounced.” Besides Jayalal-ithaa, Ms Sasikala, V.N. Sudhakaran, Jayalaithaa’s once foster son and Ilavarasi, sister-in-law of Ms Sasikala, are the accused the case.  In 2015, the Karnataka high court acquitted all of them and quashed the trial court’s order awarding four-year imprisonment to the four accused.