The appeal came up for admission before a two-member bench comprising Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Justice R.K. Agrawal on Monday.

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to stay the Karnataka HC acquittal of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa in the disproportionate assets case.

A Bench comprising Justice P.C. Ghose and Justice R.K. Agrawal issued notices to Ms. Jayalalithaa, her close aide N. Sasikala, V.N. Sudhakaran, J. Elavarasi.

Karnataka Government, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader K. Anbazhagan and on the intervention application filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Subramanian Swamy, had sought stay on the acquittal.

The Apex Court also issued notice to a separate petition filed by Mr. Anbazhagan challenging the Karnataka HC stay order setting aside confiscation of properties of the accused in the name of Indo-Doha Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd., Signora Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Ramraj Agro Mills Ltd., Meadow Agro Farms, Riverway Agro Products.

The Karnataka Government was represented by Special Public Prosecutor B.V. Acharya, Mr. Anbazhagan was represented by senior advocate T.R. Andhyarujina, Supreme Court advocate V.G. Pragasam. Ms. Jayalalithaa was represented by L. Nageshwar Rao. The six firms involved in the case were represented by C.A. Sundaram.

During the hearing Justice Ghose said at one point that the Bench had gone through all the documents and were issuing the notice. When Mr. Acharya asked for a conditional order of stay, Justice Ghose said, “It may be a very important matter for you, but for us, this is nothing, we will decide as per law.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Sundaram objected to notice being issued to Mr. Anbazhagan’s challenge on the stay order by the Karnataka HC on the confiscation of the properties of the companies involved. Mr. Sundaram questioned the locus standi of Mr. Anbazhagan, saying, that neither the State of Karnataka nor the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) had challenged the Karnataka HC order. But Justice Ghose said, “We will first look into the maintainability of Anbazhagan’s petition.” Meanwhile, Mr. Rao assured the court that they will not “deal” with the properties.

The case so far: