Jayalalithaa's wait for judicial redress just got longer

The high court verdict on AIADMK chief J Jayalalithaa’s disproportionate assets conviction appeal just got delayed. N Sathiya Moorthy traces the course of the 18-year-old case.

With the Supreme Court adjourning the hearing on the twin petitions filed by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam general secretary K Anbazhagan to March 24, the Karnataka high court might have to wait for more time before pronouncing the verdict on the appeal filed by former Tamil Nadu chief minister Jayalalithaa against her conviction and sentence in the ‘disproportionate assets case’.

A division bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Madan B Lokur and Adarsh Kumar Goyal, had set the hearing for March 18 when the petition came up for hearing on March 9. However, the two judges were attached to different benches on Wednesday.

On a special mention by Anbazhagan’s lawyer, Justice Lokur posted the hearing for March 24.

Anbazhagan had got the trial transferred to Karnataka through a Supreme Court order after Jayalalithaa returned to power in Tamil Nadu in the 2001 elections.

With this, the DMK leader argued, the accused and the prosecutor would have become one if the trial were to continue in Tamil Nadu.

In the Supreme Court now, Anbazhagan has sought a direction for replacing public prosecutor Bhavani Singh, alleging that he was partial to the accused and also arguing that his appointment, based on a Supreme Court order, was limited to the trial court.

Anbazhagan has also sought the Supreme Court’s clearance for him to implead and argue in the case after the Karnataka high court ruled that his role under the apex court's earlier direction, to assist the public prosecutor, was confined to the trial alone.

The Supreme Court case has assumed significance and immediacy after the Karnataka high court Justice P R Kumaraswamy reserved order on the appeals filed by Jayalalithaa and her co-accused -- namely, Sasikala, Ilavarasi and V N Sudakaran.

The petitioners have challenged the verdict of the trial court of Judge Michael de Cunha sentencing the four accused to undergo a prison term of four years each and fines, of which Jayalalithaa alone was ordered to pay up Rs 100 crore.

After the high court rejected the bail petition, the four accused moved the Supreme Court, where the first bench with Chief Justice H L Dattu, presiding, granted bail.

The bench directed Jayalalithaa, as the former chief minister, to ensure that her party cadres ended street violence and the abuse of the judiciary, in Bengaluru and all across Tamil Nadu, following the trial court order.

The proceedings before Justice Kumaraswamy, ordered to be closed within three months ending March 18 by the Supreme Court, reportedly saw the bench putting tough and intense questions, particularly on the facts and circumstances culled from the trial court verdict, to counsel from all sides when their turns came to present their arguments.

It was thus that the prosecutor had to answer queries on the evaluation/re-evaluation of Jayalalithaa’s properties, based on which the investigators had fixed a combined value of Rs 65 crore.

The defence argued that the properties had been overvalued even after the trial court had reduced it by 20 per cent, as if to give them a benefit of the doubt.

From Jayalalithaa’s lawyers, Justice Kumaraswamy inquired about the source of funds for the money deposited in bank accounts, a point made out in the trial court order.

Of lesser interest and possibly greater importance could be Justice Kumaraswamy’s repeated directions to the counsel of the co-accused to argue their cases, and not that of the former.

Throughout the 18-year trial and attendant interlocutory petitions from the trial court(s) to the high court(s) and the Supreme Court, the defence, particularly that of Sasikala, in turn Jayalalithaa’s live-in confidante for long, had reportedly done precisely that.

In her personal statement before the trial court, Sasikala in particular was said to have declared that she, and not Jayalalithaa, should be held responsible for malfeasance, if at all any.

All that seemed to have changed in the second phase of the high court hearing.

Going by sketchy and at times irregular media coverage of the high court proceedings, counsel for Sasikala, Ilavarasi and Sudhakaran were reported to have argued in the second phase that their respective clients could/should not be help guilty of being A-1 Jayalalithaa’s ‘benami’, or ‘bogus stand-in’, when translated loosely.

The court was told that the three had owned independent businesses and incomes even before Jayalalithaa became chief minister, and the properties and companies standing in their names could not have been deemed to be ‘wealth beyond her known sources of income’, to qualify for corruption under the relevant laws.

The counsel also argued that just because they were co-residents of Jayalalithaa in her 36, Poes Garden residence in Chennai, they could not be charged with ‘criminal conspiracy’ for the purpose of acquiring illegal wealth under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

In this context, they were challenging the provisions of the amended Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act -- anyone deemed to have been close to a public servant could be ordinarily construed as a beneficiary of, or partner to any ill-gotten wealth under the law, until otherwise proved.

At the trial stage, the prosecution had relied on the co-accused having their names registered in the electoral rolls, ration card and such other government documents, as residents of Jayalalithaa’s home, to claim such proximity and partnership.

Under such circumstances, it was rather incumbent upon the defence to prove their innocence.

A new angle may have been added to the high court proceedings when Justice Kumaraswamy, on a specific direction of the Supreme Court, permitted senior BJP leader Subramanian Swamy to file return submissions in the case.

As the original initiator of the wealth case against Jayalalithaa, Swamy submitted that Jayalalithaa had filed ‘nil’ income in some of the preceding years, despite her having substantial incomes and wealth during her days as a successful multi-lingual film star and also as a member of the Rajya Sabha.

Swamy asked the question as to how Jayalalithaa, who had declared ‘nil’ income in her tax returns and accepted only a one-rupee monthly salary during her five years in office during the 1991-96 period, could have purchased properties or upgraded existing ones.

There is nothing technically to suggest that Justice Kumaraswamy had to wait until the Supreme Court had disposed of the pending petitions for him to pronounce the verdict.

In the meantime, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister O Pannerselvam, who continues as finance minister after Jayalalithaa was disqualified by the trial court order, will be presenting the state’s budget in the assembly on March 25. 

The budget presentation has been delayed almost by a month against the traditional practice. It cannot be delayed further if the necessary appropriation bill for three-month expenses are not passed before March 31 (with two intervening holidays) if the state government had to withdraw money from the consolidated fund for the next fiscal, beginning April 1, for payment of salaries to begin with.

It is possible that the ruling AIADMK had hoped for an early high court verdict and thus Jayalalithaa’s possible return as chief minister, in time for the presentation of the Budget.

The Budget cannot wait, but the high court order, it seems, has to -- whatever the verdict.

N Sathiya Moorthy, veteran journalist and political analyst, is Director, Observer Research Foundation, Chennai Chapter