Jayalalithaa’s Acquittal: ‘Gold Refined by Fire’ or ‘Mighty Redefining Justice’?

Must Read

What is the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016?

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”) is an Act of the Parliament. It seeks to protect...

Should the Exorbitant Amounts Charged for RT-PCR Tests be Refunded?

Introduction A plea has been filed in the Honourable Supreme Court of India seeking a refund of exorbitant amounts charged...

Should CCTV’s be Installed in the Police Station?

Introduction In a recent judgment, the bench led by Justice Nariman issued directions to both the state and Union Territory...

A Legal Analysis of the West Bengal Political Crisis on IPS Deputation

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has recently summoned three IPS officers of West Bengal (WB). The decision was...

Explained: Postal Ballot for NRIs

At the end of November 2020, Election Commission sent a proposal to the law ministry to amend the Representation...

Explained: Constitutional Provisions and Legislations With Regards to a Person with Disabilities

The world celebrates December 3 as International Day of Persons with Disabilities (IDPD). This day is also called World...

Follow us

For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others”- Abraham Lincoln.

Amma’s freedom has brought the denial of justice and curtailment of freedom instead of reinforcement, for the public at large. Be it Amma’s acquittal or Salman Khan’s bail after conviction, or Laloo Yadav being released on bail after conviction and jail sentence, it’s a severe denial of justice to each and every citizen of India, who now looks upon the entire judicial system with an element of serious doubt.

On May 11, 2015, Jayalalithaa regained the right to walk freely in her ‘Poes Garden’, as she along with the three other co-accused, was set free of all charges of possession of disproportionate assets, by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in its judgment which has witnessed some unprecedented events of political and regional chaos.

The Special Court constituted by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, took nearly 60 seconds on the day of final verdict to reach out to the joys of ‘Amma’s Fans’ by overturning Justice D’Cunha’s sternly lined verdict which was delivered on September 27, 2014, slapping Jayalalithaa with a simple imprisonment for 4 years and a fine of whopping Rs 100 crores.

Early Life

Jayalalithaa Jayaram, popularly known as ‘Jaya’ or ‘Amma’, was born in Taluk Pandavapura, of Mandya District in Mysore (now Karnataka). Recognized as an acclaimed film actress in Tamil feature films, she was introduced to this turf at the age of 15 by her mother who dreamt of her daughter to be a hailed film artist.

Winning National Film Award for the best feature film in Tamil, she also made her way to the top of film industry in 1973 when she received the Award for Best Actress for Pattikada Pattanama making her mother’s dream a bright reality.

Foundation of a Prodigious Political Career

Jayalalithaa owes her early political career to Ramachandran (former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu) who, according to her, is instrumental in carving her political path to gigantic heights, which included his decision to propose Jayalalithaa as a member of Rajya Sabha considering her fluency in English language. Following Ramachandran’s death, an enormous political chaos struck AIADMK by thunder, which paved the way for Jayalalithaa to become the first female and the youngest Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu in the year 1991.

Disproportionate Assets Case

Dr. Subramanian Swamy (BJP Leader), filed a complaint of possession of Disproportionate Assets by the accused before the Inspector General of Police in the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) against Jayalalithaa, her advisor Sasikala Natarajan, niece Ilavarasi, and Sudakaran in the year 1996, based on the Income Tax Department’s report on Jayalalithaa which suggested that she misused her office of Chief Minister to accumulate wealth amounting to Rs. 66.65 Crores which was alleged to be deposited in her proxy accounts.

The impugned assets include bungalows and various farm houses and an agricultural land in Chennai, a tea plantation land in the hills of Nilgiri, cash deposits, valuable jewellery, industrial sheds, and a few luxury cars. In a departmental raid in her ‘Poes Garden’ residence, a gigantic stock of apparels, jewellery, shoes etc. were found along with other valuables.

Due to the massive political and regional support for Jayalalithaa in the State of Tamil Nadu, her case was shifted to the neighbouring state of Karnataka, as it was observed that due process of law will be vitiated if the proceedings went on in Tamil Nadu.

This case witnessed an unprecedented turn of events when the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) BV Acharya, resigned from the post of Special Public Prosecutor in Jayalalithaa’s case as he claimed that he was threatened by ‘forces’ and was pressurized to turn down the case. A parallel travesty of the rule of law was ongoing when Bhawani Singh was appointed as SPP by the Tamil Nadu Government in the case following the resignation of BV Acharya. It was a grave mockery of the judicial system that was underplaying with the case having shifted to the State of Karnataka, and so also the appointment of the SPP by State of Tamil Nadu, that was against the well-established principles of the Criminal Justice system. The same concern was raised before the Hon’ble Supreme Court where the appointment of Bhawani Singh was challenged in a writ petition, but it was categorically rejected and the Hon’ble Apex Court ordered to retain Bhawani Singh as the SPP in Jayalalithaa’s DA case.

The Disproportionate Assets case wandered aimlessly for 18 years in the temples of Justice both in Chennai and in Bangalore, which saw elevation/retirement of 4 full time Judges, when finally Justice D’Cunha, within a year of taking charge of the case, sternly pronounced his final verdict in this landmark case in September 2014 wherein he observed, “Heady mix of power and wealth is the bottom line of this case. Huge accumulation of wealth in a short span of five years (1991-96) is a telling example of how power would lead to a concentration of unlawful wealth posing veritable danger to democratic structure”.

In his 1136 pages long verdict, Justice D’Cunha sentenced Jayalalithaa to 4 years of simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 100 crores under Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and a similar term of imprisonment and a fine of Rs 10 crores each for the other accused persons who were charged under Section 120-B and 109 of the Indian Penal Code.

Appeal to Karnataka High Court

Mr. Fali S Nariman, got the bail for Jayalalithaa by presenting brilliant arguments before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Jayalalithaa was granted bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court which also ordered the appeal to be decided within a span of 4 months.

The Prosecution placed the similar facts before the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court as it had placed before the Trial Court. The bench of the Hon’ble High Court was presided over by Justice Kumaraswamy. The Hon’ble Judge took into consideration all the relevant aspects of the case including all the evidences and taxation reports of various departments, and to everybody’s surprise, Jayalalithaa along with all others, was acquitted of all the charges.

Justice Kumaraswamy observed that the case of prosecution was based on poor arithmetic calculations of loans and personal income of the accused. He vehemently observed that the method of computation of disproportionate assets was flawed and this led to an incorrect assessment of the assets of the accused.

According to HC’s assessment of Jayalalithaa’s assets, it only amounted to a sum on Rs. 2,82,36,812 which is unaccounted for, which forms disproportionate assets to the extent of 8.12% which is permissible as it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Krishnanand Agnihotri’s Case. A limit of 10% of disproportionate assets was sealed by the Hon’ble Court in this case, for a person to seek relief and claim acquittal on this ground.

Before Parting…

A historical and unprecedented mockery of the judicial system has been witnessed in this highly politicized and dramatized case, catering much to the needs of the mighty. A series of instances, ranging from Salman Khan’s Hit and Run case to Jayalalithaa’s acquittal have illuminated the miserable reality that Principle of Equality i.e. ‘All are equal in the eyes of law’ is nothing but a farce.

‘Might is Right’ is yet again reiterated by our very own temples of Justice, and its priests therein are undoubtedly true fans of the ‘veteran actress’. As Amma puts it, she is a ‘Gold refined by Fire’, it can now be inferred that this metaphor of ‘fire’ was always a marionette in her own hands.

Latest News

Supreme Court Upheld “Environmental Rule of Law” in NGT Decision to Demolish Illegal Hotel on Forest Land

This case concerns the dispute relating to the additional construction of hotel-cum-restaurant structure in the Bus Stand Complex along with a bus stand and...

UK Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Policyholders in the COVID-19 Business Interruption Case

The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court finally concluded the long-awaited COVID-19 business interruption case brought by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Hiscox Action...

Kerala High Court Disposes of Writ Petition on Grounds That Reliefs Sought Are Already in Process of Being Granted, Directs State to Complete the...

Excerpt A single-judge bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice Shircy V. gave orders on the writ petition filed by the Petitioner. This writ is filed by...

Supreme Court Directs Government To Provide Free Education To Minor Children of Rape Victims

The Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi was directed by the Supreme Court on Wednesday to make sure that minor children of rape victims are ensured free education till they attain the age of 14 years. The Court made the observation while hearing a plea filed by a woman who claimed that she belonged to the SC/ST group from Jharkhand. She was forced by a man after which her father lodged a complaint.

Aadhar Review Plea Rejected in a 4:1 Verdict by Supreme Court

The petition seeking the re-examination of the 2018 Aadhar Verdict which declares the Aadhar act constitutional and valid was dismissed by a 5-judge bench in a 4:1 verdict. In January the petitions were considered by a bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud, S Abdul Nazeer, Ashok Bhushan, and B R Gavai in the chamber and the order was up on the website on Wednesday.

New Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Amendments Are Valid Says Supreme Court

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the amendments in the insolvency and bankruptcy code which makes it mandatory for a minimum of 100 or 10% of home buyers of a project to initiate insolvency proceedings against a builder for not delivering flats or commercial shops on time.

[HUL – Sebamed Ad War] Bombay High Court Passed Injunction; Permits Sebamed Ad Against HUL’s Dove

The ad war between the German personal care brand Sebamed and the consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has come to an end. On January 19th, Bombay High Court passed an injunction order permitting the Sebamed ad against Hindustan Unilever’s Dove without any changes. It was observed that Sebamed ads were backed with evidence-based data. However, Sebamed was ordered to put an end to its advertisement that compared HUL soap bars Lux, Pears, and Santoor with Rin and detergent category.

Bombay High Court Says White Collar Crimes Are More Dangerous Than Murder and Dacoity

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected 4 petitions of 4 businessmen after observing that white-collar crimes are more serious than murder and dacoity. The businesspersons were booked for fraud of evading GST by producing fake invoices.

Right To Protection Can’t Be Granted To Married Woman Involved in Live-in Relationship: Allahabad High Court

The Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition of a live-in couple, observing that a married woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to any sort of legal protection whatsoever. The Court remarked that they are adults and should live as ‘husband and wife’ if they want no one to interfere in their lives.

Police To Decide on the Entry of Farmers To Delhi on Republic Day Says Supreme Court

While the Supreme Court heard a plea seeking an injunction against the tractor rally that is scheduled for January 26th, it held that it is the decision of the Delhi Police officers to see whether the protesting farmers should get entry into Delhi on Republic Day.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -