Death of former MP puts to rest case against Jayalalithaa

CHENNAI: A week after former DMK MP C Kuppusamy died, a decade-old case he had initiated against chief minister J Jayalalithaa was declared as ‘abated’ or lapsed, by the Madras high court.
A division bench comprising Justice Elipe Dharma Rao and Justice R Mala, refusing to allow another DMK MP, A K S Vijayan, to become a substitute petitioner and pursue the case further said: “Vijayan is neither the legal representative nor could be said to have any ‘interest’ in the PIL (filed by Kuppusamy).”
In 2001, Jayalalithaa had filed nomination in the Andipatti, Dharmapuri, Bhuvanagiri and Pudukkottai assembly constituencies.After all the nominations were rejected by election authorities, Kuppusamy filed a public interest petition seeking prosecution of Jayalalithaa for furnishing false information punishable under Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code.
In 2007, the high court directed the election authorities to initiate penal proceedings against Jayalalithaa within six weeks. However, entertaining her appeal in November 2012, the Supreme Court pointed out that at the time of scrutiny of nominations, the returning officers of Bhuvanagiri and Pudukkottai were informed that she had filed her nominations in Andipatti and Krishnagiri already. Noting that the case of suppression of facts by her could not be made out, the apex court set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the high court to be decided afresh.
On Thursday, the bench of Justice Elipe Dharma Rao and Justice Mala was informed by senior counsel R Shanmugasundaram that the original petitioner Kuppusamy died on April 19 and that Vijayan should be allowed to be the substitute petitioner to continue the litigation.
Pointing out that Vijayan did not have any ‘interest’ in the case at any stage so far, they said: “It is not a case of individual right, title and interest in any personal property. This is a PIL. In the absence of any provision of law supporting the claim of Vijayan to come on record as a ‘substitute’, we are of the opinion that no prejudice whatsoever will be caused to him in rejecting his claim.”
Even on merits the case against Jayalalithaa cannot be sustained in view of the Supreme Court finding that the allegation of suppression of information by her had not been made out, the judges said, adding: “no fruitful purpose will be served by allowing the substitute application. The writ petition stands abated.”