Perhaps the lingering image of the investigation against the former Chief Minister, Jayalalithaa, late in 1996 was the display of an array of jewellery, footwear and saris seen at her Poes Garden residence in Chennai.
Eighteen years on, a special court has ruled that the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) could only establish that the jewellery was part of unexplained assets, but failed to prove that the footwear and saris belonged to her.
In his final verdict, Judge John Michael Cunha has said the DVAC failed to establish that 386 pairs of footwear were purchased and worn by Ms. Jayalalithaa, as it was found from the evidence that there were many others residing at her Poes Garden home. The prosecution had valued the footwear at Rs. 2 lakh.
In a similar manner, the judge disallowed the prosecution claim about 914 silk saris worth Rs. 61.13 lakh and 6,195 other saris worth Rs. 27.08 lakh, besides 2,140 old saris and other dresses.
The judge said there was no dispute on the number of saris. “Though the number looks stupefying, yet it should not be forgotten that prior to joining politics, AI [Ms. Jayalalithaa] was in the cine field and therefore there was nothing unusual in having a taste for costly and fancy saris.” The judge added that there was no evidence that the saris were purchased during her tenure as Chief Minister.
But in the case of jewellery, Mr. Cunha said that about 20 kg of the 27.588 kg of gold jewellery seized were indeed disproportionate assets.
In fact, in November 1992, the jewellery was valued for the purpose of filing wealth tax for a few preceding years. The judge said that in order to avoid large-scale disclosure of the gold and diamond jewellery possessed by A1 [Jayalalithaa], some of these items were declared in the name of A2 [Sasikala].
The valuation reports were prepared only for the purpose of submitting the wealth tax returns in 1992 by segregating the articles for the previous years at whim by A1.
“This amounts to serious instance of abetment and conspiracy alleged against the accused,” he observes.