high Justice Jayachandran of the court has delivered the verdict in accordance with law and conscience. It has been welcomed by the general public. lawyers who know the law are also saying that it is the right verdict.
but DMK leaders and DMK’s lawyer N. R. Ilango and their ally Thirumavalavan are all criticising the judge’s verdict. This means that justice Jayachandran, who heard the Ponmudi case, was above suspicion, but he had served as the law secretary in the AIADMK regime. He has handled files for freezing of assets in this case.
besides He says that during the AIADMK regime, the lower court acquitted the case filed with political vendetta. Similarly, he is of the opinion that he should be released in the High Court as well. For that, the DMK should conduct a court and it should have dmk lawyers in it. No matter how much he has done wrong, or how much he uses his power to loot crores of rupees, he should be judged innocent. this is what the dmk is expecting.
It doesn’t need a law. There is no need for a court. There is no need for a responsible post of democracy. He has given respect to the post and given the minimum punishment. He should have been given the maximum punishment. Because what was his early property? Now how did such a huge asset come about? Can you take the account he is showing? Where did that property come from? How did you get there? What business did he do? Whatever business he does, the income will come from the capital he has put in through that profession or on the assets he owns. This is a fair income. But how did thousands of crores of rupees come to them? This is the main question of the general public? Is this the question of the law?
besides What is the details of his family’s assets while contesting elections? What is the details of the current property? If all this is taken into account, many more properties in this case will be frozen. It would have been necessary. That’s the proper account. The false accounts they say, the false accounts of the auditor, the loopholes in the law, and let’s say the judge is not as impeccable as they say.
Can they summon a judge from heaven and ask them to hear this case? Also, do they deserve it before criticising the judge? They are talking without knowing it. The people are deceivers, fools, a group of people who have been sold for money, this vote power, with political power as a business to seize and plunder political power, for so long the law has been enacted for so long . Justice Jayachandran has proved that the law and the people can no longer be deceived by deceiving, fooling the public and using the ability to speak anyway.
Moreover, justice It’s for the people. The constitutional law is based on democracy and it has been given importance. But its importance is not for political parties, not for political party lawyers, and if you get a favourable verdict, justice has won.
But if the verdict does not come in favour, they will keep criticising the judge. Everyone is equal before the law. Not only that, did N R Elango study the law to bend the law? If you have studied law, what wrong has the judge done on the basis of that law? Point it out, where was he other than that? Was there? What if he’s where he is? Has he given the verdict according to the law and conscience? That’s what the people need. No judge can do justice to all your outrageous speeches.
Also, people who know the law, people who have a conscience , are saying that this is the right verdict. Besides, I would like to say something else to the speakers of such anarchic hooliganism. Justice is within the personality of Saneeswaran. If the judge is wrong, the judge will also be punished for that mistake. Do you know who is giving that punishment? God. Similarly , you who are talking about all these loopholes in the law, cannot bear God’s punishment. I don’t know how he will give it. Now you are saying, do you know who gave all that disease to the disease? This is God. No matter how much power is swayed by power, God will not exempt him from the law. You can’t look for holes there. Therefore, there is punishment for the crime committed. Whoever it is, it is no exception.
Also, if I tell a wrong message to people here, I will be punished for that too because people are deceived by that wrong message. I have to answer for that mistake. If people misuse their position, power and loot crores of rupees by amassing assets, should the law and the court listen to you? Many of the corporate media that is being talked about today, this It is making a mistake. The result is surely that God is going to write a judgment.
Moreover, what voted for you, to the people It is to give honest governance and good governance. But to loot No, it is the fault of the people. For that mistake people are suffering because of nature’s punishment, and now they are suffering due to the effects of the rains and floods. It’s painful to think about what kind of suffering and misery people are going to go through in 2024. The reason is that a king must rule according to his law and conscience. Otherwise, people would scold the king that there would be no rain in the country. Now who will be scolded when nature’s punishment is given?
Apart from this, why is the angel of justice in court? Is she blindfolding? Do people like N R Elango and Thirumavalavan know that? Don’t you know? I don’t know what law they all studied, they are studying the loophole in the law. The court is for upholding justice. There is no need for courts to uphold injustice. That’s why the goddess of justice blindfolded and asked, “Is he a DMK partyman? Or is he an AIADMK partyman? Or is he a party to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam? A BJP partyman? that The party should be outside the court. The appointment of such visualists as public prosecutors is a punishment for justice.
So, at least in the future, the court should stop the work of converting these political parties into lawyers . How can those who are agents of a party be appointed as such public prosecutors within the court? Will he speak for that party? Or will he speak for the welfare of the people? Therefore, the court should not accept the recommendations of the ruling party in the future , irrespective of which political party it is.
Moreover, such a position, the case of those in power, is inferior The trial should not be allowed in the court anymore. the special court for the purpose or Only the High Court and the Supreme Court should hear these cases.
because incapable of defending the law in a lower court They are. Understand that that’s the main reason for the current criticism. It’s okay if you do.
