The disproportionate assets case against Chief Minister Jayalalithaa cannot be viewed as a mere default in payment of Income Tax, but should be treated as corruption in public life, the Karnataka government said before the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
About seven months after filing an appeal in the apex court, Karnataka began arguments against the State High Court’s acquittal of the Chief Minister and three other co-accused – N. Sasikala Natarajan, V.N. Sudhakaran and J. Elavarasi – in the wealth case.
The State government submitted before a Bench of Justices P.C. Ghose and Amitava Roy that Ms. Jayalalithaa created a veneer of “conscientiousness” by drawing Re.1 salary. “On the other side, tons of money are carried in suitcases to the banks by her cadre,” senior advocate Dushyant Dave appearing for Karnataka submitted.
‘Trial court judgment brilliant analysis’
Slamming the acquittal of Jayalalithaa as a “gross miscarriage of justice”, senior advocate Dushyant Dave for Karnataka that it had “become a fashion for political leaders to term crores of money they get as birthday gifts”.
“It is unbelievable how such defence is taken up and accepted,” Mr. Dave, who is assisted by Supreme Court advocate Joseph Aristotle, submitted. Special Prosecutor B.V. Acharya was present in the courtroom.
Terming the trial court judgment as a “brilliant analysis” of the anti-corruption law interpreted by the Supreme Court, the senior lawyer said, “We are looking into the sources of her income and not into whether she has accounted it for the five years (1991-1996). This is not an Income Tax matter, but corruption. The prosecution’s version is that wealth amassed is completely, grossly mis-proportionate to any known sources of income”.
‘Marriage of the century’
At one point during the hearing, when Mr. Dave described the wedding of accused, V.N. Sudhakaran as the “marriage of the century”. But Justice Ghose checked him.
Mr. Dave alleged how the accused continued to reside under the “same roof” with Ms. Jayalalithaa despite the fact that allegations of corruption were raised against them.
“What does it show? If I had some responsibility, I would have disowned them. Because they are in public life, they feel they can be so brazen,” Mr. Dave submitted.
Karnataka’s appeal described the High Court judgment as “cryptic, lacks reasoning and illogical”.
In July 2015, the apex court refused to stay the Karnataka High Court judgment of acquittal while issuing notice to all the four accused on all the petitions filed by the Karnataka government, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader K. Anbazhagan and an intervention application filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Subramanian Swamy.
The court also issued notice to a separate petition filed by Mr. Anbazhagan challenging the Karnataka High Court order setting aside the confiscation of properties held by Indo-Doha Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd., Signora Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Ramraj Agro Mills Ltd., Meadow Agro Farms, Riverway Agro Products “for and on behalf of Ms. Jayalalithaa”.
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.
