Chennai: Madras high court raised three issues including to what extent medical treatment details of a person should be put into public domain while hearing a public interest litigation.
The PIL sought a direction to the Union government to appoint a commission comprising three retired judges of Supreme Court to probe the alleged “mysterious death” of former Chief Minister late J. Jayalalithaa.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M. Sundar raised three issues while hearing the PIL from AIADMK member P.A. Joseph.
Admitting the PIL, a vacation bench headed by Justice S. Vaidyanathan had on September 29 orally expressed doubts over Jayalalithaa’s death and said if this case comes before his bench, he may even order the exhumation of her body for proper probe to unravel the truth.
When the case came up for hearing on Monday, senior counsel K.M. Vijayan appearing for the petitioner submitted that people were worried about the secrecy surrounding Jayalalithaa’s death and that her leg was amputated during treatment prior to her death. Except medical bulletins released by the Apollo hospitals, the government had not revealed any details of Jayalalithaa’s health condition, he added.
Senior counsel R. Gandhi, appearing for another PIL petitioner Gnanasekaran, said even the Governor was not allowed to visit Jayalalithaa when she was under treatment in the hospital.
Senior Counsel P.S. Raman, appearing for Apollo hospitals, submitted that a complete discharge summary of Jayalalithaa was ready with the hospital and denied the allegation that there was mystery in the death of Jayalalithaa.
The bench then raised three issues. It sought to know whether the PIL petitioners have any locus standi to raise the issue before the court. It sought to know whether there was any specific doubts regarding medical treatment given to Jayalalithaa and it asked as to what amount of treatment details could be placed in public domain.
The bench also observed that the absence of an immediate family member complicated the issue a bit. Adjourning Joseph’s plea hearing to February 23, the bench said the PIL filed by Gnanasekaran would be listed to see if it raised any point not argued by the other PIL.
