SC grants bail to Jayalalithaa, asks her not delay appeal

October 17, 2014

New Delhi, Oct 17: In a major relief to jailed AIADMK chief J Jayalalithaa, the Supreme Court today granted her bail in a disproportionate assets case in which she was sentenced to four-year jail term.

A bench headed by Chief Justice H L Dattu stayed the sentence and warned Jayalalithaa against causing any delay by seeking adjournment in her appeal in Karnataka High Court.

The bench directed Jayalalithaa to file paperbook of her appeal in the high court within two months.

"If paperbook is not filed within two months, then we won't give you even a single day more," the bench said.

It refused to dispose of the bail plea and posted the case for hearing on December 18 to ensure that Jayalalithaa complies with its order.

The bench also said that it would ask the high court to dispose of her appeal within three months.

In an hour-long hearing, initially the bench expressed reservation on granting bail to her, saying she had delayed the trial proceedings for years and if she is allowed to come out on bail then appeal would be decided in two decades.

Senior advocate Fali S Nariman,appearing for Jayalalithaa, assured the court that the matter would not be delayed, saying that he was willing to give the statement on affidavit that no adjournment would be taken by her in the high court.

"I undertake that no delay would be caused while appeal is heard by high court. It is not a game. It may have been a game before. You can record my statement," Nariman told the bench.

The apex court also granted bail to Jayalalithaa's close aide Sasikala and her relatives V N Sudhakaran, disowned foster-son of the former Chief Minister, and Ilavarasi.

Comments

Add new comment

Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.

Modi-led India abstains from UN resolution to end Israel’s occupation of Palestine

News Network

September 19,2024

Narendra Modi-led government of India has abstained in the UN General Assembly on a resolution that demanded that Israel bring an end, “without delay”, to its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory within 12 months.

The 193-member General Assembly adopted the resolution, with 124 nations voting in favour, 14 against and 43 abstentions, including that by India.

Those abstaining included Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy, Nepal, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.

Israel and the US were among the nations who voted against the resolution titled ‘Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences arising from Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and from the illegality of Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory’.

The resolution adopted Wednesday demanded that “Israel brings to an end without delay its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which constitutes a wrongful act of a continuing character entailing its international responsibility, and do so no later than 12 months from the adoption of the present resolution.”

The Palestinian-drafted resolution also strongly deplored the continued and total disregard and breaches by the Government of Israel of its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations, international law and the relevant United Nations resolutions, and stressed that such breaches seriously threaten regional and international peace and security.

It recognised that Israel must be held to account for any violations of international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including any violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, and that it “must bear the legal consequences of all its internationally wrongful acts, including by making reparation for the injury, including any damage, caused by such acts.”

Comments