Legal experts are categorical that Sasikala’s review petition at best works out to be a mere formality of exhausting the last option available. But no relief can be expected of it.
Senior Counsel P Wilson, said “Unless the review petition involves an important flaw or omission in the judgement, nothing much can be expected of it and in this particular case since the judgement has taken extensive care of all details, the scope of the review creating any impact seems remote. However, just by moving a review petition does not mean deferment of sentence and she has to necessarily surrender.”
A ‘review petition’ is a process whereby a decision of the Supreme Court/ high Court can be reviewed. But, it is said that going by the principle of ‘stare decisis’, which means standing by a decision, courts generally do not unsettle a decision.
Also, such a petition needs to be filed within 30 days from the date of judgement and that it would be merely circulated without oral arguments to the same bench of judges that delivered the judgement, which is sought to reviewed.
However, even if a review petition is dismissed, the SC may consider a curative petition to prevent abuse of its process and to cure gross miscarriage of justice. Sources in the AIADMK point out that the only option available was to seek Sasikala’s discharge on the aspect of Jayalalithaa’s demise. The lone way out according to them is based on the aspect that under the Prevention of Corruption Act illegality flows from the public servant and hence the other accused are mere co-conspirators.
However, the SC bench comprising Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Justice Amitava Roy have very clearly held that “The mere fact that the sole public servant dies after the exercise of powers under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the PC. Act, will not divest the jurisdiction of the special judge or vitiate the proceedings pending before him.”