The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea filed by the legal heir of former Tamil Nadu chief minister J Jayalalithaa seeking the return of the properties confiscated in a case against her and said abatement of proceedings did not mean she was acquitted of the crime.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma referred to its observations in the 2017 judgment in State of Karnataka v. J Jayalalithaa where proceedings stood abated as she died during the pendency of the appeal.
"It should imply that further consideration of the case with regard to the correctness of the judgment of the high court, acquitting the accused number 1 (Jayalalithaa) would not be taken further by this court. However, abatement would not imply that the judgment of the high court has attained finality," it added.
The top court was hearing a plea filed by Jayalalithaa's niece claiming right over the confiscated property belonging to her in the disproportionate assets (DA) case in which she was indicted by the apex court.
On January 29, a special Central Bureau of Investigation court ordered the transfer of all confiscated assets belonging to Jayalalithaa to the Tamil Nadu government.
The decision came after the Karnataka High Court on January 13 dismissed a plea by Jayalalithaa's niece and nephew, J Deepa and J Deepak, who staked claim to the properties as her legal heirs.
Jayalalithaa was convicted in the DA case, where she was found guilty of amassing wealth beyond her known sources of income.
The top court upheld the confiscation of her properties despite abating proceedings against her following her demise in 2016.
Her heirs argued that since the case against Jayalalithaa was abated, her assets should not be confiscated.
The high court however ruled that the apex court had upheld the special court's conviction of the other accused, and thus, the asset confiscation remained valid.
The properties with the Tamil Nadu government include Veda Nilayam, Jayalalithaa's iconic residence in Poes Garden in Chennai, several land parcels and estates linked to the DA case, bank deposits and other financial assets held in her name, gold jewellery, and valuables she had amassed during the check period, from July 1, 1991 to April 30, 1996.
The high court allowed the heirs to submit proofs if any assets were purchased before the check period.
If they could establish such claims, they would be entitled to their value, even if the properties were auctioned, it said.
© 2025