Jailed Sasikala Files Review Petition, Claims Was Never A Public Servant

News World India | 0
| May 4 , 2017 , 10:33 IST
[caption id="attachment_245340" align="aligncenter" width="700"]Sasikala Files Review Petition On DA Case Conviction By SC, Claims Was Never A Public Servant Sasikala Files Review Petition On DA Case Conviction By SC, Claims Was Never A Public Servant[/caption] Days after nephew and AIADMK deputy general secretary TTV Dinakaran was arrested, AIADMK general secretary V K Sasikala has filed a review petition against her conviction by the Supreme Court in the disproportionate assets case claiming that as she had never been a public servant the charges of disproportionate assets are not applicable. Sentenced to a 4 year jail term in the disproportionate assets case where Sasikala was accused along with the former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister the late Jayalalithaa, Sasikala had appointed her nephew TTV Dinakaran as her deputy to run the party in absence. AIADMK had already split in two factions, one headed by Sasikala and the other by temporary TN CM O Panneerselvam by the time Sasikala entered jail. ALSO READ: Ruling AIADMK Faction Ousts Sasikala, TTV Dinakaran And Family From Party Over the 11 weeks Sasikala spent in prison, the AIADMK factions have considered a merger after both factions were denied use of the AIADMK name and two leaves poll symbol. However, O Panneerselvam demanded that before merging, both Sasikala and Dinakaran should be removed from the party. Dinakaran was later arrested on charges of attempting to bribe an election commission official for rights to the two-leaves poll symbol of AIADMK. Sasikala's review petition claims that as she was simply an aide of Jayalalithaa the prevention of corruption law did not apply to her and that since Jayalalithaa's passing, the case also comes to an end. The same points had been made by Sasikala's lawyers in the Supreme Court during the original sentencing but had been rejected. Review petitions to the Supreme Court are generally not heard in open court but are instead circulated among the judges who delivered the original verdict and decision is made in the chambers of the judges without any oral arguments.