Jayalalithaa death, treatment must be investigated in “eminent public interest” – archyde

In SC, Tamil Nadu recounts a series of events “that showed the gravity of her death”.

The Tamil Nadu government in the Supreme Court on Tuesday named former Tamil Nadu Prime Minister Jayalalithaa “undoubtedly one of the highest leaders” of the state, whose 75-day treatment and eventual death are being investigated at the Apollo Hospitals in Chennai must be in the “eminent public interest”.

Speaking to the judges’ bench of S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari, senior lawyer Dushyant Dave said on behalf of the state: “All the government wants is an investigation.”

The state recounted a series of events “which showed the gravity of her death”. “Their property was broken into within a few days. A guard was murdered there. Another person’s wife and daughter were killed. A third person operating the computer died … all of which shows how serious their death was, ”added Mr. Dave.

He said the investigation into these cases was ongoing.

Also Read: Supreme Court Ticks Off Commission Investigating Jayalalithaa’s Death

The state responded to a petition from the Apollo Hospitals alleging bias by the government-appointed Commission of Inquiry, A. Arumughaswamy, into the former prime minister’s death.

“Strong light from the public”

The commission’s senior lawyer Ranjit Kumar said rumors and allegations were being distorted. The truth must be established, even if it puts people’s behavior in the “sharp light of the public”. He alleged that there are cases when rumors and allegations cannot be suppressed by leaving them to the state police. A high-level commission of inquiry must be set up to examine the facts and provide those affected with a free and fair atmosphere for their statements, he said.

“For a year they have [Apollo] participated in the investigation … they sat on the fence for a year and then said the investigation was biased. The doctrine of renunciation applies here, ”added Mr. Dave.

The senior attorney argued it was “premature” on the part of the Supreme Court to intervene now.

Mr Dave said the commission would submit its report to the government, which would use its opinion to decide whether to accept or reject it.

“Until the government decides that there is a need for action, nothing will happen. Only when action is taken will they [Apollo] can contradict … So inedible the process [before the Commission] may be, it has to be left to the future. The court cannot intervene now… allow the commission to close its investigation, which is largely in the public interest, ”added Mr Dave.

Later in the hearing, Mr. Kumar said that the Commission’s report would be presented to the legislature along with the report on the actions taken by the government.

“’Measures’ is in the past tense… What if an FIR is registered based on the Commission’s report?” Asked the bank.

Mr Kumar generally noted that in the past the government had put reports from commissions in the “cold store” without taking any action.

Judge Nazeer said commissions were set up to “pass the time … just to defuse the situation”.

“Why do you appoint commissions if you don’t intend to publish your reports … is getting out of the situation?” Asked Justice Nazeer.

“There are commissions … and then there are commissions,” replied Mr. Kumar. He pointed out how the Justice Nanavati Commission’s report on the 1984 riots had led to indictments.

The court asked the commission to issue an affidavit clarifying whether or not the nature of the investigation was public On the camera.

At the hearing, the court asked whether the commission could be reinstated. In this regard, Mr Dave referred to precedents of the Supreme Court which found that once the executive has set up a commission of inquiry, it cannot interfere with its operations or usurp its powers. He said the commission was just an “information point”. Your report would be of a purely recommendatory nature. “Nobody would be prejudiced,” he remarked.

But then, Mr. Dave asked why the court should enter this area without Apollo asking. To support his point, Mr. Dave quoted a saying, “Even mother won’t eat without asking.”

The senior advocate said the notification to the state appointing the commission was valid. The commission acted well within its remit in examining the scope of treatment of Ms. Jayalalithaa and her records. He said his mandate to investigate whether or not her treatment was appropriate allowed the commission to request the medical records.

“The commission can see if the treatment has been best for you … Death and the mode of death are important … If the nature of the treatment needs to be investigated, wouldn’t it cover the adequacy or inadequacy?” Asked Mr. Dave.

Reputation “spoiled overnight”

The hospital’s chief attorney, Aryama Sundaram, had previously argued that the reputation of the leading Chennai hospital, where Ms. Jayalalithaa took her last breath in 2016, was tainted by the commission “overnight,” which took an “incredible” tangent. The attorney in charge had said that the Commission’s path was exactly like the Alice in Wonderland fairy tale.

Mr Sundaram claimed that the commission was even about to request the medical records relating to the hospitalization of another former Tamil Nadu Prime Minister MG Ramachandran 37 years ago and his transfer to the hospital in Brooklyn, USA

The proceedings before the commission were suspended by the Supreme Court in April 2019 on the basis of a plea by the Apollo hospitals that the workings of the investigative committee were “biased”.

The Apollo Hospitals alleged that, instead of conducting an impartial investigation, the commission had filed a plea for “criminal intent” by the hospital and its doctors.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *