Jayalalitha and CBI

Ever since the CBI took up the 2G spectrum allotment case, day in and day out Jayalalitha had been issuing statements ‘directing’ the Central investigating agency on the contents and names that should find place in the chargesheets to be filed before the courts. She has usurped the roles of prosecutor and also suggesting the judiciary as to how the cases should be dealt with. As pointed out by Kalaignar whatever be the issue whenever she makes statements she presumed as though she is above all suspicions, an epitome of purity and truthfulness and a repository of moral values. In respect of CBI also, she has a repulsive and disgusting record, that makes her in competent to speak about CBI cases. But she invariably proves herself too thick skinned.

One of the cases filed by the CBI against Jayalalitha is Birthday gift case. When she was the Chief Minister she celebrated her birthday on a grand scale when she received 89 demand drafts worth Rs.2 cr. and cash of Rs.15 lakh. In her capacity as Chief Minister she must have handed over the gift money to the government. But she deposited it in her personal account.

On July 30, 2006 the CBI has filed a charge sheet against Jayalalitha for allegedly accepting gifts worth more than Rs.20 million in the 1990s. Two of her colleagues - Azhagu Thirunavukarasu and K.A. Sengottian - both former ministers, had also been charged with abetting the crime. The charges against the former Tamil Nadu chief minister were filed under Section 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The 2,000-page charge sheet, filed in the court of principal judge Meenakshi Sundaram, cited 285 documents and 149 witnesses. According to CBI sources, Jayalalitha received 89 demand drafts worth Rs. 20 million, drawn on various banks in the state and purchased in the names of 57 people, as well as Rs.1.5 million in cash. Twelve of the 57 names were found to be fictitious. Some of the witnesses reportedly told the CBI that they had purchased the drafts at the instance of the two former ministers. The drafts and the cash were deposited in Jayalalitha's savings bank account in the Canara Bank in Chennai.

The case was initially registered in 1996, under the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988, on a complaint made by the Director General of Income Tax. The case was taken over by the CBI in 1996 for investigating an alleged offence of criminal misconduct by a public servant relating to gifts allegedly received by her, which she had disclosed in her income tax returns. Jayalalitha allegedly used the drafts to avail of an immunity scheme announced by the central government in 1991-92. She had also received $300,000 from an unknown admirer, and disclosed it under the scheme, which granted her immunity from prosecution under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act now replaced by FEMA.

In 2000, Jayalalitha appealed to the Madras High Court to discharge her from this case citing delay in filing of chargesheet. In the counter affidavit filed by the CBI in this case, the efforts of Jayalalitha to protract the case and her intention had been clearly spelt. Ever since the case was filed, the CBI asked for permission to ask the Interpol to investigate at Channel Island in UK, New York and Dubai which was not granted. Similarly the efforts to collect some details from foreign banks did not yield fruit. Several years were taken for these efforts causing the delay. After the investigations the chargesheet was filed only after obtaining legal advice from the Solicitor General of India. These aside, the case was protracted only because of Jayalalitha who till then had filed 12 appeals in various courts, the CBI said noting that her aim was to prevent the filing of the chargesheet. So no further development had taken place since July 31, 2006. The co-accused had also been delaying the hearing by filing petitions in courts. The CBI claimed that it was not in possession of Income Tax documents to show that she had accepted the gifts and pleaded the High Court to order the CBI Special Court to hear the case on day to day basis. This was stated in the counter of the CBI filed in September 2010 to reject the petition of her to discharge her from the case. Thus the CBI had unmasked her face.

The CBI had also investigated the case of investment of about Rs.35 cr. in dollars by Sasikala’s nephews V.Baskaran and TTV Dinakaran in the name of a firm in Virgin Island in Barclays Bank. The Income Tax department’s case against her for failure to file IT refurns for the year 1992-93 and Enforcement Directorate’s case on payment made to a Singapore based telecom firm and a Russian television firm to the tune of 6.8 lakh dollars without the permission of the RBI and in violation of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act are also still pending in courts.

During her regime a case was filed against one Robin Moin who was close to her for obtaining loans from nationalized banks by submitting fictitious RC books of vehicles. Chargesheet was also filed against the then Speaker of the State Assembly Kalimuthu for collusion with Robin Moin, following which the opposition parties sought his resignation. Rejecting the demand Jayalalitha told the Assembly on 4.4.2005, “Chargesheet had been filed against the accused. That is all. They have not been convicted. Till now judgement has not been delivered holding them guilty. So there is no disqualification. The High Court itself had held that they could continue as ministers. Similarly the Speaker has also been arranged as an accused in a case, and a chargesheet has been filed against him. That is all. He has not been convicted and sentence awarded. So there is no bar on his continuation as Speaker.”

(It is the same lady who now demands that family members of Kalaignar whose names are mentioned in the chargesheet should be arrested.)

Whenever opposition parties demanded CBI probes into something in the State Assembly, Jayalalitha had rejected it with a scant remark ‘The CBI after all did not descend from the Heavens.”

With such track record, Jayalalitha has no moral right to suggest and direct the CBI on how to proceed on investigation and who should be included in the chargesheet!