DMK leader K. Anbazhagan on Monday challenged in the Supreme Court the >acquittal of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa by the Karnataka High Court in a disproportionate assets case.
Terming the High Court judgment as patently wrong, the special leave petition filed by Mr. Anbazhagan said the High Court single judge’s verdict acquitting her ignored the >Supreme Court’s directions to apply all care and caution, provide concrete reasons and appreciate vital evidence in the wealth before reaching a conclusion.
The petition, filed by Supreme Court advocate V.G. Pragasam, sought an interim stay of the “patently wrong judgment”, which resulted in the consequential removal of disqualification of Ms. Jayalalithaa.
This petition closely follows the >Karnataka government’s special leave petition in the Supreme Court against the acquittal.
In its petition, the Karnataka government termed the May 11 judgment by Justice C.R. Kumaraswamy a “gross miscarriage of justice”, and ridiculed the calculations arrived at by the judge, which resulted in the exoneration of Ms. Jayalalithaa and three co-accused — N. Sasikala Natarajan, V.N. Sudhakaran and J. Elavarasi — in the corruption case.
Seeking an interim stay, the Karnataka petition said the HC judge did not even bother to record cogent reasons for reversing the “well-considered judgment” delivered by trial court judge John Michael D' Cunha on September 27, 2014.
Among other grounds for challenge, Mr. Anbazhagan contended that the High Court ought not to have accepted the gifts of the value of Rs.1,50,00,000 received by Ms. Jayalalithaa as income as it was not from a lawful source.
His petition also contended that the income tax returns filed by the accused for the check period between 1991 to 1996 was an “afterthought to account for the illegitimate assets acquired by them”.
It contended that the High Court committed grave error in rejecting the charges of abetment and conspiracy against the accused.
The DMK leader argued that the High Court further misdirected itself and got “carried away by the inflated loan amount of Rs.24,17,31,274 arrived by gross mathematical miscalculation”.
“The most important piece of link which connects all the accused and proves abetment and conspiracy is the fact that the funds were transferred or remitted to the accounts of their 34 bogus companies with 100 bank accounts either from the bank account held in the name of Namadhu MGR , Jaya Publications or other firms run by them,” the petition contended.
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.
