Karnataka government on Monday indicated that it would take “some more days” to decide on filing an appeal in the Supreme Court against acquittal of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa in the disproportionate assets case.
A meeting would be held with officials to discuss the issue, Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister T B Jayachandra said, as exactly a week lapsed after the High Court gave a clean chit to the AIADMK chief and three others clearing them of all charges in the 19-year-old case.
Asked if it is necessary for the issue to be discussed in the State Cabinet, he said, “That is why I have called a meeting with my officials to see how the case builds up for us to file an appeal.”
“After the meeting, we will take a decision,” he said. He has called the meeting for later in the evening on Monday, he said.
“Anyway we have some more days,” he said.
> Also read: A picture of pluck, perseverance
Soon after the verdict that had paved the way for Ms. Jayalalithaa’s return as Chief Minister, Special Public Prosecutor B V Acharya had advised Karnataka government to file an appeal in the Supreme Court, saying it was a “fit case” to do so.
Mr. Acharya had however said that the ball was now in the government’s court.
After the High Court verdict on May 11, Mr. Acharya had said the prosecution had been “seriously prejudiced” in the case as the state of Karnataka and SPP appointed by it were denied an opportunity to convince High Court through oral arguments.
Mr. Acharya, who was re-appointed SPP by Karnataka Government after the Supreme Court held as “bad in law” the appointment of Bhavani Singh to the post by Tamil Nadu Government, had submitted written submissions seeking rejection of Ms. Jayalalithaa’s appeal.
He had also said the High Court verdict acquitting the former Chief Minister had “glaring arithmetical error” relating to her disproportionate assets.
Chief Minister Siddaramaiah has said that his government had nothing to do with either AIADMK or DMK and it would take a “legal decision” on filing an appeal in the Supreme Court.
Karnataka is the sole prosecuting agency in the case.
The High Court’s verdict came on appeals by Jayalalithaa and her close aide Sasikala Natarajan and two of latter’s relatives against the judgment of the Special Court Judge John Michael D’Cunha, who, in September last, had awarded four years jail term to them. He had also slapped a fine of Rs 100 crore on Jayalalithaa and Rs 10 crore each on three others.
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
>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 account for less than 10% of total 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 It is an unusual feat for any politician in the country to regain her eligibility to hold the post after being unseated twice as Chief Minister.