THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The palmolein case, which is pegged for its political undercurrents and which continues to simmer even after two decades after its eruption, is poised to trigger more political debate in the state with the unusual exit of the Vigilance court judge on Saturday after declaring his reluctance to hear the case further.Judge P K Haneefa may be termed as a victim of a concerted campaign questioning his credibility as a judge following his interim order last month in the case directing a reinvestigation and in particular investigate the role of Oommen Chandy in facilitating the import deal.But Government chief whip P C George stands to gain politically in his domain by the sudden turn of events even when the UDF is likely to be viewed in bad light as behind unleashing George to launch a frontal attack against the judge by raising various allegations, and by even writing a complaint to the Indian President. As for the neutral role and moral high ground of Chief Minister Oommen Chandy that he will not question a court’s verdict or the conduct of a judicial presiding officer under any circumstances, his political returns from such a stance has an added sheen at the moment, despite Opposition outcry on the contraryBut the CPM- led opposition is determined to derive maximum political mileage out of the situation, though it is still mired in the Lavalin case . The remarks passed by judge P K Haneefa while excusing himself from the case on Saturday will have its political reverberations for some time in the state. However, opinion is divided and according to one section in legal circles, thejudge should have quit the very moment the allegations were raised against him. The judge should have abstained from hearing the case since he was targeted by a slew of allegations, opined Sebastian Paul, former MP and practising lawyer of the High Court. But Justice V R Krishna Iyer, noted jurist, said that it was not proper on the part of the Vigilance Court judge to take a hasty retreat at this juncture.“The interim order passed by the Vigilance court judge was never a finding or verdict in the palmolein case. It was only a directive to probe a few points which has cropped up while the proceedings in the case was going on. The hue and cry raised over it is meaningless,” said a senior government pleader in the HighCourt, on condition of anonymity.
Comments
0 comment