Denying “grave mathematical miscalculations” of loans received during the check period of 1991-1996, Chief Minister Jayalalithaa on Monday told the Supreme Court in an affidavit that loan transactions were based on proven records made transparent during the trial in her disproportionate assets case.
The affidavit said the documents produced, as well as documents of the Indian Bank in particular, detailed loans advanced to the accused/firms in this case.
In their petitions against the acquittal, the State of Karnataka and DMK leader K. Anbazhhagn had contended that the Karnataka High Court judgment of May 11 had committed a grave mistake in totalling the 10 items of loans by arriving at a figure of Rs. 24,17,31,274, when on proper totalling, the same ought to be Rs. 10,67,31,274.
“Even assuming there are certain mistakes in calculations, if the consequential reliefs are granted based on findings rendered, it is submitted that there will not be any change in the judgment of acquittal,” Ms. Jayalalithaa's affidavit said.
On criticism that the 1977 Krishnand Agnihotri case law was used to back the argument that if the excess of assets over expenditure was within 10 per cent a public servant cannot be found guilty, the affidavit said the case law was used to explain “the difficulties faced by a public servant to explain every piece of income and expenditure several years post facto”. Even the court was not expected to make assessment of such income and expenditure with mathematical precision, it said.
The Karnataka appeal had contended that the 1977 case law led to the erroneous decision that the disproportionate assets of the accused was only to the extent of 8.12 per cent of the income when actually it worked out to 76.7 per cent, the disproportionate assets being Rs. 16,32,36,812 and the income as found being Rs. 21,26,65,654. On the point made that gifts received were not accounted for, Ms. Jayalalithaa said she was the Chief Minister at the time, a public servant and not a government servant. “Throughout the trial the prosecution had not produced any statutory rule which requires a public servant like a Chief Minister to inform the government either of the assets or expenditure incurred in a particular year,” the affidavit said.
Other allegations countered in the affidavit, includes those regarding the marriage expenses of Mr. Sudhakaran.
The clinching argument
The value of disproportionate assets was Rs. 2.82 crore and this value was not enough to convict them on charges of corruption, said Justice C.R. Kumaraswamy in his verdict while disagreeing with the verdict of the Special Court, which had computed the value of DA at Rs. 53.6 crore.
AIADMK chief keeps her plans under wraps
In a statement, Ms. Jayalalithaa said the verdict gave her immense satisfaction and proved that she was innocent. She warned her political opponents to end their conspiracies against her and thanked the partymen and people who prayed for her. But she did not reveal any of her plans. > Read more
What the SPP said
“Counsel for the accused were allowed to make oral arguments for nearly two months, but no prosecutor authorised by Karnataka was present during such arguments,” B.V. Acharya said. > Read more
Comment
>Trial, errors and judgment - Sanjay Hegde After a long and convoluted progress through the courts, Ms. Jayalalithaa has finally been acquitted by the High Court. But this might not be the end of the morality play, with another appeal looking likely.
>Amma’s apogee moment - A.R. Venkatachalapathy History, the Marxist cliché goes, repeats itself twice — usually as a tragedy and then as a farce. But sometimes it repeats itself as a bigger tragedy. As the implications of the Karnataka High Court’s blanket acquittal of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa are thrashed threadbare, some crucial cultural questions remain to be explored.
>Where loyalty trumps all - Meera Srinivasan Loyalty, in a sense, has been the hallmark of Tamil Nadu politics. A person’s political commitment is primarily judged, in political circles, by her steely resolve to stick to a leader no matter what he or she is accused of. So what if critics label their leaders corrupt, authoritarian or power-hungry? “None like our leader,” they will vouch, with unmistakable earnestness.
How DA came to account for less than 10% of income
- Vigilance probe’s findings: Construction costs: Rs.27,79,88, 945 Marriage expenses: Rs.6,25,04,222
- High Court’s findings: Construction costs: Rs.5,10,54,060 Marriage expenses: Rs.28,68,000
- Exaggerated value: Construction costs: Rs.2,69,34,885 Marriage expenses: Rs.6,16,36,222
- Total assets: Vigilance estimate - Exaggerated value Rs. 37,59,02,466
- Disproportionate assets: Total assets - Total income
- Rs.37,59,02,466-Rs.34,76,65,654 = Rs.2,82,36,812
- Rs.2,82,36,812 x 100/Rs.34,76,65,654=
The Hindu Editorial
- > A sensational comeback The Karnataka HC’s judgment absolving Ms. Jayalalithaa of the grave charge that she amassed wealth illegally is undoubtedly a resounding political victory for her.
