"The refusal of the State Government to furnish the information sought by the Centre is a blatant refusal to comply by the laws made by Parliament, which applies to the state of Tamil Nadu also," he said in a statement rejecting Tamil Nadu Law Minister Aladi Aruna's stand that the State government would not part with information on the cases. Thambidurai, a nominee of the AIADMK in the BJP-led coalition, said a situation had been created where the Centre may be compelled to issue directions under Section 256 of the Constitution to ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament.

"If, notwithstanding such directions, the State government refused to exercise the executive power in such a manner as to ensure compliance with the laws made by theParliament, a situation will be created where Article 365 may have to be invoked," he said. While Art 256 provides for Centre issuing directions to the State to ensure compliance with laws made by Parliament, Art 365 would empower the President to hold that a situation has arisen in a State where the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with constitutional provisions. Rejecting Aruna's contention that there was no need to provide details of the cases sought by the Centre because it was Tamil Nadu government which was spending money on the courts to pursue these cases, Thambidurai said this "betrays his woeful ignorance of the Constitution".

The federal set up of the Constitution with the concurrent legislative list conferred ample powers on the Central government, the Union Minister said asking the State Government to allow courts to decide on the legal issues on merits. Thambidurai said the Centre had rightly invoked its power under Section 4(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, and had sought particulars from the State in respect of all pending prosecution under the Act.

The Union Minister said the Chennai High Court, even according to the State Law Minister, had held that where there was more than one special judge for the area, Centre alone had the power to specify which case would be tried by which special judge.

"The cases to be so allotted by the Central government are not merely the cases instituted by the Central government or the CBI, but even the cases instituted and investigated by the State agencies including CB/CID, directorate of vigilance and anti-corruption and regular state police," Thambidurai said. He added that the relevant statutory provisions had also been quoted in the letter sent by the Centre.

Maintaining that the special courts were set up for specially trying only the cases instituted against his leader Jayalalitha and her former cabinet colleagues, Thambidurai said these "additional courts" were sanctioned in April, 1997 under the Tamil NaduSpecial Courts Bill of that year.

"Perhaps when this attempt did not go through or when the State Government realised that it would not go through, these three additional courts were designated as special judges and reserved exclusively for trial of cases against former chief minister and her colleagues," he said.

"It is this special treatement which was sought to be to be meted out by the state of Tamil Nadu, which had been challenged by Jayalalitha and her colleagues," he said.

Stating that the State government had passed the Tamil Nadu Special Court Bill 1997 and restricted the jurisdiction of the special courts from June 1991 to May 1996, Thambidurai asked whether the period prescribed was aimed at protecting Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi and his family members from the "past and future deeds of corruption".

When serious constitutional objections were raised by the Centre, the DMK government had developed "cold feet" and did not pursue the Tamil Nadu Special Courts Bill, he charged.