Whenever charges are leveled against DMK Ministers
in the UPA government at the Centre, Jayalalitha is on her toes demanding their
immediate resignation or sacking by the Prime Minister. When they quit the
Cabinet on their own her instant comment is “Too late, too little”. Both print
and electronic national media, self-ordained crusaders against corruption, give
her more prominent coverage than the main opposition parties in Parliament like
the BJP and the Left. Of late she is being portrayed as if she is yet another
Anna Hazare or Baba Ramdev.
It is generally believed that people’s memory is
short. But can it be true of the Media too, which proclaims its role as ‘Makers
of public opinion’. Even children in Tamil Nadu contemptuously laugh away
Jayalalitha’s pretentions against corruption because for centuries to come
Jayalalitha’s name will exist synonymous with corruption. She is still not out
of the mire of corruption she got entangled during her first regime 20 years
back and manipulated to come out in some by hook or by crook. When she was in
power, she cared two hoots for very serious charges of corruption levelled
against her and her regime, even after the Governor of the State giving his
consent for prosecuting her.
Jayalalitha has many firsts to her credit. The
actress-turned politician was the first woman Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. But
she is also the first Chief Minister to be declared guilty under the Prevention
of Corruption Act. (She is also the first and only Chief Minister in India to be
unseated by the Supreme Court). After the change of regime in Tamil Nadu, the
government had to set up three special courts to exclusively deal with the
cases against her – as many as 12 major corruption cases against Jayalalitha
alone and 33 cases against her associates, including her confidante Sasikala,
former ministers and senior bureaucrats, all based on charges that were
consistently and constantly levelled during her regime. The long legal route
she had traversed so far and yet to traverse will take volumes of books.
As a way of reminder to the Media, here are
reproduced articles and write-ups published by various newspapers and magazines
in one of the cases against her, the infamous TANSI case – in which she claims
to have ultimately come out clean – exposing the myth at every stage, from the
Trial court to the Supreme Court, traversed for eight long years by the ‘Queen
of Corruption.’
Following is the chronology of events in the TANSI
case in which Jayalalitha was acquitted by the Supreme Court reported by Press
Trust of India on Nov. 23, 2003
— TANSI — Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation.
— Jaya Publications and Sasi Enterprises, in which Jayalalitha
and Sasikalaa were partners, purchase TANSI foundry land and foundry and TANSI
enamel wire unit and land in 1992.
— Chargesheet filed on November 15, 1996 on the
ground of loss to state exchequer of Rs 2.28 crore (in foundry property) and Rs
58.88 lakhs (enamel wire factory)
— Charges were framed against six accused,
including Jayalalitha, Sasikala on June 10,1999.
— Madras High Court discharges Jayalalitha on
January13, 2000. On special leave petition filed by TN govt, apex court in
April erases Madras HC order and directs Jayalalitha to face trial.
— On October 9, 2000 trial court convicts Jayalalitha
to three years and two years rigorous imprisonment in the two cases on charges
of criminal conspiracy.
-- In November, Madras HC stays the verdict and not
the sentence leading to her debarment from contesting Assembly elections in
2001 because of three years RI.
— ADMK sweeps the polls and Jayalalitha becomes the
CM.
— September 21, 2001 — SC unseats Jayalalitha
holding that disqualified person cannot hold the office of CM.
— December 4, 2001 — Madras HC acquits Jayalalitha
of all the charges.
— Jayalalitha becomes MLA by contesting in
Andipatti constituency.
— In January 2002, SC admits special leave petition
by DMK lawyer R.S. Bharathi challenging Madras HC order acquitting Jayalalitha.
—
Orders in this case in SC were reserved on September 26, 2002.
—
Nov. 2003, SC upholds HC verdict acquitting Jayalalitha.
After the Special Court convicted and sentenced for
three years RI each in the two cases of ‘TANSI’ deal, the business daily
‘Business Line’ published the following article under the headline “Jayalalitha:
Reaping the whirlwind” on 12-10-2000.
“AT LONG last, the first milestone has been reached
in the various corruption cases against the ADMK general secretary, Jayalalitha.
As the Special Courts tried the various cases filed against her on charges of
corruption committed during her 1991-9 6 regime, there was a near unanimous
opinion that Jayalalitha would find it especially difficult to wriggle out of
the TANSI land deal case.
The case pertained to Jaya Publications -- in which
Jayalalitha was a partner with her close friend, Sasikala -- buying about 3.07
acres from the TANSI at a deflated price, causing the State exchequer a loss of
around Rs. 3.5 crore. Yet another property was bought from TANSI by Sasi
Enterprises, in which also Jayalalitha was a partner, at a price much below the
guideline value.
Finding her guilty of criminal conspiracy (Section
120 (B) of the IPC) and criminal breach of trust by a public servant (Section
409 of the IPC), the Special Court sentenced her to three years RI in the first
case, and two years RI in the second.
The judgment, as expected, caused ripples among the
ADMK cadres across the State but these were reflective more of the implications
for her political future. For unless she manages to have the sentence stayed by
a higher court, it means she will not be able to contest an election for six
years under Section 8 (3) of the Representation of the People's Act.
Till now Jayalalitha has not been faced with this
dire electoral implication, as one case after another came up for judgment. In
February, she was convicted to one year's RI in the Pleasant Stay Hotel case, a
sentence not sufficient to debar her from contesting the elections. The case
pertained to the construction of a multi-storeyed hotel in Kodaikanal in
violation of the building rules. While she was acquitted in the Rs 10.16-crore
television scam (pertaining to the purchase of 45,000 TV sets for village
panchayats), she still faces trial in the Rs. 66.65-crore disproportionate
assets case, the Rs. 7-crore coal import deal of 1993, and the Rs. 28.29-crore
Spic disinvestment case.
The verdict, and her being debarred from elections
for six years, at least as of now, takes one back to her five-year regime,
which began in 1991. After the internal squabblings in the ADMK for a few years
after MGR's death, the massive mandate she got in 1991 was a clear pointer that
the people of Tamil Nadu saw her as the real heir of MGR's political legacy.
Anyway, the party had no other leader with charisma and intellect.
Such was the ADMK sweep that the DMK chief, Mr. M.
Karunanidhi, was the only one from the party to win a seat; he resigned that
seat too, as soon as the results came out, and there were many taunts of his
being afraid to face the triumphant Jayalalitha in the Assembly.
There was even talk that some of the `tougher' ADMK
legislators were rolling up their sleeves to pay back the DMK chief to avenge
the alleged assault on their `Puratchi Thalaivi' in the House the previous
year.
And what did she do with this mandate?
At the first and rare press conference she
addressed after being sworn in Chief Minister, she promised that as the
Opposition was virtually non-existent, she would treat the media as the
Opposition and take serious note of whatever it wrote.
And how did she keep that promise?
By filing more than 100 defamation cases against
reporters and media organisations for daring to criticise her manner of
functioning and raising questions about the corruption that was becoming
rampant in her administration. Soon, she stopped meeting journalists, as every
question asked about a suspect decision was quickly dubbed by her as having
being inspired by Mr. Karunanidhi. During her five-year regime, she met the
press not more than three times. Government information about happenings in the
State was doled out through fax messages. As fax machines cannot be asked
questions, Jayalalitha had effectively blocked out the media.
Interestingly, her predecessor, MGR, had apparently
often told his confidants that he did not set much store by media criticism
because ``after all, our voters don't cast their votes after reading
newspapers''. But he was smart enough not to ruffle the media's feathers.
Much worse was in store for the people of Tamil
Nadu, who were treated with contempt. As the sycophants around her, in
particular the coterie led by Sasikala, grew in number and strength, her
arrogance knew no bounds. Not only her cabinet colleagues but many senior
bureaucrats also trembled before her. As the people watched in disbelief,
hoardings and full-page newspaper ads appeared depicting her as one Hindu
goddess or another -- it required the State's Christian community to show their
outrage through protest marches when she was depicted as the Virgin Mary.
Sasikala, her family members and their cronies
virtually took over the State's administration. The governance of Tamil Nadu
was virtually shifted out of the Secretariat at Fort St. George to Veda
Nilayam, Jayalalitha's residence at upmarket Poes Garden,
Chennai.
Stories of rampant corruption did the rounds in
Chennai, but few made their way into the mainstream media, as they could not be
substantiated with documentation. The rare bureaucrat or politician who would
stick his/her neck out to bring a corrupt deal before public scrutiny just did
not seem to exist.
The whole set-up assumed ridiculous proportions
with Jayalalitha adopting Sasikala's nephew as her foster son. Then followed
the most vulgar display of wealth and ostentation as virtually the entire city
was taken over for the foster son's marriage ; if one is asked to pinpoint the
defining moment when the people of Tamil Nadu decided they had had enough of
the Jaya regime, one might point to the ostentatious marriage drama.
In the 1996 elections, the pendulum swung back as
violently as in the previous election, and the lone DMK MLA of the 1991
elections returned to the Chief Minister's chair with a thumping majority. Then
followed the cases against the ADMK chief. She had her brief moment of glory
when her party was part of the second Vajpayee Government at the Centre. But as
nothing could be done about the cases against her, an outraged Jayalalitha
finally brought down the Union government within 13 months, giving a clear
signal to the people that she cared a tuppence about anybody but herself.
If, today, Jayalalitha finds herself in the dock,
there are few to shed tears for her. Because she has none but herself to blame.
But if you think she is contrite, you would be
wrong. In her first reaction to the TANSI verdict, she has accused the
Karunanidhi Government of wrongly arresting ADMK cadres for making a ‘righteous
protest’ against the court verdict. So what if a few buses are burnt and the
people terrorised? After all, they are ordinary mortals and not avatars of this
goddess or that.”
After the Madras High Court judge S.Thangaraj
passed order discharging Jayalalitha from TANSI case on January 2000, the
fortnightly ‘Frontline’ published an article titled ‘A Judge’s strange sojourn’,
which raised doubts over the CJ ‘specially allotting’ the matter to the Judge.
The article said:
"A JUDGE shall not accept gifts of hospitality
except from his family, close relations and friends." This is the tenth
item of "Restatement of Values of Judicial Life," a code of conduct
adopted by the conference of Chief Justices of High Courts in New Delhi in December 1999.
However, a sitting Judge of the Madras High Court,
Justice S. Thangaraj, not only travelled to Malaysia in October last year in
the company of S.K. Krishnamoorthy (50), a real estate dealer, against whom
several cases of cheating, wrongful confinement and rioting are pending but
accepted the hospitality of one Jayabal at Ipoh, near Kuala Lumpur. Jayabal
reportedly paid the hotel room bills of Krishnamoorthy, Justice Thangaraj, and
two others during their 10-day stay at Ipoh
from October 16 to 26, 1999. The other two were S.
Selvarathinam, retired Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Intelligence, and C. Selvaraj (45), a practising lawyer.
On
February 11, Chennai Police Commissioner P. Kalimuthu ordered the detention of
Krishnamoorthy under the Goondas Act. He was arrested on January 30, 2000 on a
complaint from a financier, Veluchamy, that Krishnamoorthy threatened him by
pointing a revolver at his neck. According to informed sources, there were
cases relating to the violation of immigration laws against Jayabal filed by
Malaysian officials.
The
Judge's name is found as "Thangaraj S. Justice" in the passenger
manifest of the Air-India flight AI 483 from Kuala Lumpur to Chennai on October 26. It was
Krishnamoorthy who bought the air tickets for himself, Justice Thangaraj and
Selvarathinam. Justice Thangaraj later paid him for his tickets, Krishnamoorthy
told the police.
Justice
Thangaraj's conduct raises serious questions of propriety, especially in the
context of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dr. A.S. Anand emphasising that the
need for "in-house procedures for higher judiciary cannot be doubted at
the present juncture. " The CJI made this comment while inaugurating the
conferences of Chief Justices. Dr. Anand added: "The existing situation in
some high courts emphasises the need for serious consideration of this
issue."
In January
this year, Union Law Minister Ram Jethmalani, while reiterating the Centre's
resolve to set up a National Judicial Commission, said he was not satisfied
with the code of conduct evolved by the Supreme Court. Jethmalani said that
"a list of dos and don'ts as to how a judge should behave will be
specified" (The Hindu, January 6).
THE questions
that need to be answered in this context are: Did Justice Thangaraj obtain the
permission of the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court before travelling to Malaysia?
Did he apply to the Reserve Bank of India for foreign exchange?
Justice
Thangaraj's conduct has been widely reported in the Tamil press with pictures
of the Judge, Krishanmoorthy, Selvarathinam and Selvaraj taken at different
settings in Malaysia,
but surprisingly there has been no response from the judiciary.
When
reporters asked M. Karunanidhi on February 1 about Justice Thangaraj's trip,
the Chief Minister replied, "What can I say about it? This is a matter to
be gone into by the court and the Chief Justice. I cannot say anything."
When a reporter said that he was raising the issue because the person with whom
the Judge travelled had criminal cases against him, the Chief Minister said,
"If the reports are true, it is highly condemnable and regrettable. When
one takes into account the newspaper reports, it appears that they are true. I
expect those concerned to take suitable action."
Krishnamoorthy
runs S.K. Real Estates and S.K. Videos in Anna Nagar, Chennai. A press note
issued by the Police Department on February 11, after Krishnamoorthy was
detained under the Goondas' Act, said that he had pledged his house with
industrialist (and financier) Veluchamy for Rs.10 lakhs. When Veluchamy
repeatedly demanded the money back, Krishnamoorthy said he would sell his house
to Jayabal of Malaysia and return the money. Veluchamy then took legal steps to
have the house auctioned.
Krishnamoorthy
went to Veluchamy's office at Villivakkam, Chennai, and demanded the return of
the house documents. When Veluchamy refused, Krishnamoorthy took out a revolver
and threatened to kill him, the press note said.
On a
complaint from Veluchamy, the Rajamangalam police registered a case against
Krishnamoorthy under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (including
attempt to murder and assault) and the Indian Arms Act, arrested him on January
30 and seized his unlicensed revolver. There are several other cases pending
against him.
Informed
sources said Krishnamoorthy boasted to a police sub-inspector at Rajamangalam
that he enjoyed a lot of clout with magistrates, IAS and IPS officers, and had
gone to Malaysia
with Justice Thangaraj. When the sub-inspector searched Krishnamoorthy 's
house, he found goods obtained from Malaysia there. The sources said
Krishnamoorthy took the police to his mother's house and gave them the
photographs taken in Malaysia.
It was on
October 16 that Justice Thangaraj, Krishnamoorthy and Selvarathinam flew
together to Malaysia.
Selvaraj had flown to Kuala Lumpur
earlier in the day to arrange for transport for them there. Krishnamoorthy,
Justice S. Thangaraj and Selvarathinam stayed together in Malaysia and
returned together to Chennai on October 26. They travelled both ways in economy
class.
The
sources quoted Krishnamoorthy as having said that he had bought the flight
tickets but Justice Thangaraj paid him the sum later. Krishnamoorthy also reportedly
told the police that he paid some of the Judge's bills in Malaysia and
that the Judge returned the money later here. Jayabal reportedly settled the
room bills for the four persons.
Informed
sources said that Krishnamoorthy revealed to the police that he had paid the
rent for the marriage hall where the wedding of Justice Thangaraj's son was
celebrated on July 11, 1999. But the cheque that Krishnamoorthy gave for
Rs.26,000 bounced. The cheque, drawn on HDFC Bank and dated April 21, 1999,
bore the number 129994. He, however, paid up in cash on May 19, 1999. According
to Krishnamoorthy, the Judge later paid the rent amount to him.
IT was
Justice Thangaraj who, on January 13, discharged Jayalalitha, former Tamil Nadu
Chief Minister and General Secretary of the ADMK from two corruption cases
against her. He set aside the order of Special Judge P. Anbazhagan framing
charges against her in the "Jaya Publications case" and the
"Sasi Enterprises case", both together called the "TANSI cases"
(Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation). The same day, Justice Thangaraj
upheld the order of another Special Judge, V. Radhakrishnan, discharging
Jayalalitha from another corruption case relating to the import of coal by the
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (Frontline, February 4, 2000).
In the
High Court, Justice A. Ramamurthi and Justice Thangaraj were the Judges who
heard criminal appeals. On August 3, 1999, when the TANSI case relating to
Jayalalitha was posted before Justice Ramamurthi, her counsel N. Jothi
mentioned that the matter had already been dealt with by Justice Ramamurthi
when he was Principal Sessions Judge. So Justice Ramamurthi posted the matter
to the Chief Justice. The then Chief Justice specially allotted the matter to
Justice Thangaraj. The TANSI case was posted before him on October 7 and 14.
But the hearing was adjourned on both days. The High Court had Dasara vacation
from October 16 to 24. Justice Thangaraj went to Malaysia on October 16 and resumed
duty on October 27. Hearings were completed in the TANSI and coal cases on
December 20. On January 13, 2000, he passed orders discharging Jayalalitha from
these cases. The Government has gone on appeal to the Supreme Court against
these verdicts.
On
February 3, Jayalalitha showed press reporters photographs of Krishnamoorthy
with Karunanidhi and Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK) general
secretary Vaiko. When reporters asked Karunanidhi about this on February 4, he
said many people met Chief Ministers and Ministers on their birthdays. "It
is not possible to ask them for their addresses and whether they have gone to
jail, before they garland us. If the well-known sandalwood smuggler Veerappan
comes, he can be prevented," the Chief Minister observed sarcastically.
Replying
to a question on Krishnamoorthy, Karunanidhi said that several cases of
cheating had been registered against him since 1991. Asked what Krishnamoorthy
and others did in Malaysia
for ten days, Karunanidhi replied: "It is said that all those things are
being inquired into. Those who should inquire will properly inquire." On
whether a police team had gone to Malaysia, the Chief Minister said:
"No comments."
Another
upcountry daily ‘The Pioneer’ on Feb.1, 2000 published an article, ‘TANSI case judge comes
under a cloud’ which alleged links of an ADMK speaker in the controversy over
the Judge.
“With
a pair of sunglasses and a hat, he looked like any other tourist visiting Malaysia. Only,
he happened to be a judge of the Madras
high court.
Justice S Thangaraj has landed in a soup now because
of that trip. A photograph of his turned up in the possession of an estate
agent in Madras
who was arrested for brandishing a revolver at a client.
Justice Thangaraj was in the news recently for
discharging former Tamil Nadu chief minister and All-India Anna Dravida
Munnetra Kazhagam general secretary J Jayalalitha in the TANSI land deal case.
The prosecution thought it had the case tightly shut, since it had relied
mostly on documentary rather than oral evidence. The state government has since
moved the Supreme Court against the order.
No one gave it any serious thought when newspapers
reported that one Velluchami of Tirumangalam in Madras had made a police complaint against a
real-estate agent, K V Krishnamurthy, of neighbouring Anna Nagar, for threatening
him at gunpoint to return some property documents. But the police did not
ignore the complaint and raided Krishnamurthy, mainly to recover the weapon and
find out it was legal.
"What was in store was explosive," says
an investigating officer. Krishnamurthy runs a video-parlour besides his
real-estate agency. "When we raided the place looking for the gun, we came
upon photographs of Justice Thangaraj in Malaysia. Krishnamurthy confirmed
the identity of the person in the picture and also gave details of the
tour." Next thing the photographs and details got into a Tamil newspaper
closely identified with the ruling DMK.
According to Velluchami's complaint, he had lent Rs.
1 million to Krishnamurthy against a house-mortgage. Later, he learnt that
Krishnamurthy had sold the property to a man named Jayapal from Kuala Lumpur. It was when
legal proceedings were on for Velluchami to bring the mortgaged property to
public auction and recover his dues that Krishnamurthy threatened him at
gunpoint.
Police investigations seem to have revealed more
than what they are willing to say on record. According to reports, the
controversial Jayapal played host to both Krishnamurthy and Justice Thangaraj
in Malaysia
from October 16. According to the statement reportedly made by Krishnamurthy to
the police, he and the judge were in Malaysia as Jayapal's guests.
Accompanying them were an advocate, Selvaraj, and a retired police
superintendent, Selvaratnam.
The police have also reportedly recovered
documentary evidence of Krishnamurthy having paid the rental for a marriage
hall where the judge's son's wedding was celebrated on July 11 last year. Of
this, Rs.10,000 was paid in cash and the remainder Rs. 26,000 by cheque.
Investigators, however, say their curiosity was
originally aroused not by the judge's photograph, but by several CDs and
videotapes, which they suspected to contain pornographic material. They
arrested Krishnamurthy and took him into custody for four days. But during his
interrogation the judge's matter came to light.
According to Krishnamurthy's admission to the
police, he was a daily wage earner at the Integral Coach Factory, Perambur,
before hitting the big time in the real-estate business. Police say he
defrauded many of his clients, including some senior police officers, both
retired and serving.
They are also investigating his alleged links with
a senior ADMK politician from the southern districts who is known to be a
stage-orator in his own right and is believed to have been the purpose behind
the Malaysian Jayapal visiting Madras twice in 10 days, on January 1 and 10,
just days prior to Justice Thangaraj delivered judgement in TANSI case.
Earlier, former Union minister and Tamizhaga Rajiv
Congress politician Vazhapadi K Ramamurthy had made allegations about the judge's
'Malaysian links' while commenting on the TANSI verdict. He had also mentioned
the judge's foreign trip and his alleged links with an ADMK politician.
Incidentally, the judge was elevated to the high
court bench when Jayalalitha was chief minister of Tamil Nadu.
On April 18, 2000, the Supreme Court ‘erased’ the
order of the Madras High Court discharging Jayalalitha in TANSI case and ‘The
Indian Express’ report it the next day:
“The Supreme Court today observed that it was not
proper on the part of the Madras High Court to interfere in the trial of ADMK
supremo Jayalalitha in the Rs.3.5 crore TANSI land scam case, especially when
the trial was at an advanced stage.
This forced Jayalalitha's counsel, arguing against
Tamil Nadu Government's special leave petition (SLP), to seek time till Tuesday
to seek instruction whether she was prepared to face trial in the case despite
being discharged by the High Court.
A division Bench comprising Justices K T Thomas and
Ruma Pal, while hearing the SLP, observed, "the High Court should not have
interfered with the trial which was at an advanced stage and should have waited
for the verdict of the trial court."
"Pre-empting of the trial is neither the
practice nor precedent of the Supreme Court," Justice Thomas observed.
He said the Supreme Court may give its verdict
either in favour of Jayalalitha or the prosecution. "In the event of the
verdict being in favour of the prosecution, the trial court would be burdened
with the interpretation of law made by the Court," the Bench said.
Justice Thomas observed that it was always better
in the interest of justice that the trial court was allowed to apply its mind
uninfluenced by anything except the evidence led in the case.
Jayalalitha's counsel, senior advocate Sushil
Kumar, would inform the court about the undertaking on Tuesday.
The Tamil Nadu Government informed the Court today
that about 25 of the 27 witnesses were examined in one case while another 20
were examined in the other case against Jayalalitha when the Madras High Court
verdict came.
On February 25, the Supreme Court while staying the
High Court order discharging Jayalalitha had directed her to face trial in the
multi-crore TANSI land scam case.
However, the Bench asked the trial court not to
pronounce its verdict during the pendency of the Tamil Nadu Government's appeal
before it.
The Government alleged that the purchase made by
Jaya Publications and Sashi Enterprises, both owned in partnership by
Jayalalitha and her confidant Sashikala, made her liable to be prosecuted under
Section 169 of the Indian Penal Code which barred public servants from bidding
for Government properties.
She was also charged under various sections of
Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly abusing her official position to
make pecuniary gain for her and consequential loss to the state.
Jayalalitha's counsel said all the purchases were
made after paying the prevailing market price and accused the state government
of persecuting their political rivals.
Justice S Thangaraj of the Madras High Court had on
January 13 discharged Jayalalitha from the case saying that there was no prima
facie material to frame charges against her.
On December 4, 2001, the Madras High Court
acquitted her in the case about which the weekly ‘Outlook’ published the
following article in its issue dt.17.12.2001 under the heading, ‘ It Ain't Over
Till…’
"The first accused
dishonestly abused her office as CM and bought the TANSI property. There was no
force in the argument that TANSI was a private property."
Special Judge P. Anbazhagan
on October 9, 2000, in his verdict on the TANSI case.
"TANSI property was
neither a trust property, nor was it under the control of the government. Therefore,
there's no question of Jayalalitha purchasing government property. The code of
conduct wouldn't apply."
Judge N. Dinakar of the Madras High Court on
December 4, 2001
Amma is back. So is
Madam. Both words are palindromes. Back to front and front to back they read
asking the same question: when will Jayalalitha be back as CM? "She was
always our CM. Past, present and future," said an ecstatic social welfare
minister B. Valarmathi after Jayalalitha Jayaram's acquittal by the Madras High
Court in the TANSI and Pleasant Stay Hotel cases.
Truth be told, it doesn't
really matter whether Jayalalitha rules from Poes Garden
or Fort St George. But the December 4 ruling has effectively cleared the decks
for her to contest the polls. A by-election is due in February in her
pocketborough Andipatti, from where she had got MLA Thanga Thamizhselvan to
resign two days before being unseated by a constitution bench of the Supreme
Court in September. Right now, Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy, a
complainant in the TANSI case, is the only man capable of halting Jayalalitha's
cavalcade. That is if the Supreme Court admits his appeal against the
acquittal.
The law certainly did
take Jayalalitha's course. Justice Dinakar not only acquitted her but also
ensured that she and partner Sasikala Natarajan were richer by at least Rs.15,000
each. "Bail bonds, if any, executed by them shall stand cancelled and the
fine amount paid shall be refunded," he ruled.
The Dinakar ruling means
that Jayalalitha and Sasikala are now rightful owners of the contentious
property—3.07 acres of land belonging to the state-owned TANSI Foundry and TANSI
Enamel Wire at the Guindy Industrial Estate in Chennai, which they purchased on
May 29, 1992. The particular wording of the judgement also means that if
Jayalalitha assumes Chief Ministership again, she would be free to acquire more
such 'government' property in a similar manner, for "the property owned by
a corporation is not government property". Dinakar's pronouncement also
sends across the message that such transactions would not "attract Section
169 of IPC" (which says a public servant cannot bid for or purchase
certain property). "In effect, this means," says Madras High Court
lawyer K.M. Vijayan, "that an Arun Shourie as Disinvestment Minister can
go about buying the companies he is disinvesting." The ruling is good news
for realtors too. In Dinakar's understanding, a property's "market value
itself is vague and uncertain and a matter of guesswork, not defined in the
Indian Stamp Act".
It was the October 2000
special court verdict that disqualified Jayalalitha from contesting the May assembly
polls because she had been convicted. The ADMK won a majority and Jayalalitha,
with the help of a controversial decision of then Governor Fathima Beevi,
hastily took charge only to be booted out by the Supreme Court on September 21.
She put in place a nightwatchman called Ottakaara Panneerselvam, who of course
was just keeping the chair warm for Puratchi Thalaivi.
But how did Dinakar go
about turning the lower court verdicts on their head? As early as on October
18, the justice's drift was evident. He had asked the special public
prosecutor: "What is the proof that the signature found on the TANSI-Jaya
Publications land sale deed is that of Jayalalitha?", shaking the very
foundation of the prosecution's case. He added there was no proof that it was
Jayalalitha who had affixed her signature.
In the Pleasant Stay
Hotel case, Jayalalitha and Co were accused of having allowed a seven-storey
luxury hotel to come up in Kodaikanal in brazen violation of building laws. On
February 2, 2000, special judge V. Radhakrishnan convicted and sentenced her
and four others to one year RI for favouring the hotel owner in return for
monetary considerations. Surprisingly, on December 4, 2001, Justice Dinakar
doubted the very existence of some crucial evidence—the dissenting additional
note of Municipal Administration Secretary P.C. Cyriac—and noted that the
prosecution had failed to establish the existence of a mens rea (guilty mind).
Vijayan terms the
judgements a "great blow to the concept of rule of law and also to the provisions
of the Prevention of Corruption Act". Because the prosecution fails to
argue the case convincingly, it doesn't mean a person is not guilty. "You
can't get away with a mere technicality," he says. Vijayan also debunks
the theory that TANSI is not government property: "The learned judge has
arrived at this by interpreting tax laws. It doesn't hold good here."
After delivering the verdict, 59-year-old Dinakar left Chennai on a month's
holiday.
And as if to make things
easy for Jayalalitha, the prosecution lawyer never seemed to relish the
responsibility thrust upon him. On October 30, to some probing questions by the
judge, a befuddled special public prosecutor K.V. Venkatapathi had said:
"You're asking a lot of questions and expect answers immediately.
Basically, I am a civil lawyer. Unfortunately, I am standing here."
Meanwhile, sources say
the stage is set for the ADMK to formally embrace the BJP. First, the ADMK sang
the POTA tune while the DMK struck a jarring note. A grateful Centre okayed a
Rs.422-crore bailout package for the cash-strapped state; then one saw the BJP
staying aloof during the transport workers' strike and the December 7 state
bandh. The state BJP's Hindutva elements have always been warmer to Brahmin
Jayalalitha. The ADMK has also estranged itself from all its electoral
allies—Communists to the Congress.
Amma seems to be back, at
least for now. And if the ADMK's affair with the BJP leads to the DMK's divorce
from the NDA, she may be on a roll for the rest of the state assembly's term.
A comment posted on its
website said: “Biased, Not Blind”, Apropos It Ain’t Over Till... (December 17).
The judiciary is the root cause of all ills in India. It’s the legislative and the
executive that keep getting the brickbats, but if we look carefully, it’s the
abysmal conviction rate (except in contempt of court cases) which helps people
like Jayalalitha and Laloo to thrive. Who says justice is blind? In India
it carefully scrutinises who is rich and powerful and delivers them from harsh
judgements.
Following the Supreme
Court’s judgement upholding the acquittal of Jayalalitha in the TANSI case
‘Frontline’ in its issue dated 1-15 December 2003 published the following
article, ‘The end of a legal battle’:
“For seven years, the
attention of the people and politicians of Tamil Nadu stood riveted on the two
TANSI cases - the Jaya Publications and
the Sasi Enterprises cases. In September 1992, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
(DMK), headed by M. Karunanidhi, first raised the issue of corruption in a
memorandum to Governor Bhishma Narain Singh, alleging that Jayalalitha, who was
then Chief Minister, had abused her office and violated the Code of Conduct for
Ministers when she bought the government-owned TANSI's property. The two cases
traversed a long way from the Metropolitan Magistrate's Court to the Special Court and
the Madras High Court and finally the Supreme Court.
The spotlight turned on
the Supreme Court after Justice S. Rajendra Babu and Justice P. Venkatarama
Reddi reserved their orders in the two cases on September 26, 2002. After a gap
of 14 months, perhaps the most excruciating period for Chief Minister Jayalalitha
because she was the first accused in both the cases and any unfavourable
verdict could affect her political future, the Judges on November 24 upheld the
High Court verdict acquitting Jayalalitha.
There was instant
jubilation outside Jayalalitha's residence at Poes Garden
and at the headquarters of the ruling ADMK in Chennai. "It is entirely
God's will. Thanks be to God," Jayalalitha said. She and her confidante
Sasikala Natarajan, who is the second accused in both the cases, then proceeded
to offer prayers at a temple in Tirurvottriyur, on the outskirts of Chennai.
There was no stopping the party leaders and cadre who, relieved of the tension,
burst firecrackers and distributed sweets outside the ADMK office on Avvai Shanmugam Road.
In the same
neighbourhood, former Chief Minister Karunanidhi and his family and friends
were mourning the passing of Union Minister "Murasoli" Maran, the
previous day.
The DMK's legal wing
secretary R.S. Bharathi was the prime mover in the legal action against Jayalalitha
and others.
Although the Supreme
Court acquitted Jayalalitha, the Judges' sharp observations that "she must
atone" for buying the TANSI property "not only by returning the
property to TANSI unconditionally" but by taking "steps to expiate
herself" triggered a demand from the Opposition parties for her
resignation.
The Communist Party of
India (Marxist) was the first off the block to demand her resignation. The
party sought it on two counts: the court's observations in the TANSI cases and
another Supreme Court Bench's observation, while transferring to a Special
Court in Bangalore the two "disproportionate wealth cases" against Jayalalitha,
that "there is strong indication that the process of justice is being
subverted" in Chennai.
Justice Rajendra Babu and
Justice Venkatarama Reddi said in the penultimate paragraph of their 52-page
order in the TANSI cases: "... Good ethical behaviour on the part of those
who are in power is the hallmark of a good administration and people in public
life must perform their duties in a spirit of public service rather than by
assuming power to indulge in callous cupidity... Irrespective of the fact
whether we reach the conclusion that A-1 (Jayalalitha) is guilty of the
offences which she is charged or not, she must atone for the same by answering
her conscience in the light of what we have stated not only by returning the
property to TANSI unconditionally but also ponder over whether she had done the
right thing in breaching the sport of the Code of Conduct and giving rise to
suspicion that rules and procedures were bent to acquire the public property
for personal benefit, though trite to say that suspicion, however, strong,
cannot take (the) place of legal proof in a criminal case, and take steps to
expiate herself."
The CPI(M) said in the
editorial in its Tamil daily ‘Theekkadir’ on November 25: "Jayalalitha
cannot feel happy over this verdict. It will be in the fitness of things if she
understands the import of the judgment and resigns as Chief Minister." It
pointed out that the Supreme Court talked about the rise of "suspicion
that rules and procedures were bent to acquire the public property for personal
benefit" and asked her to "atone" by "answering her
conscience". It, therefore, said, "Jayalalitha should accept moral
responsibility (for her actions) and resign from the chief ministership."
N. Varadarajan, State secretary of the CPI(M), made a similar demand.
Karunanidhi drew
attention to the Supreme Court's observations that Jayalalitha "in her
anxiety to save her skin went to any length even to deny her signature on
documents, which her auditor and other government officials identified",
that "persons in public life are expected to maintain very high standards
of probity", and that she must answer her "conscience". These
words, according to him, constituted a stronger indictment than any punishment.
"I pity the
gods," was the sarcastic sally from Vaiko, general secretary of the
Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK), on Jayalalitha's stand that her
acquittal was "God's will". She had violated the spirit of the Code
of Conduct and had no moral authority to continue as Chief Minister, Vaiko
said.
Dr. S. Ramadoss, founder
of the Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK), said that returning the TANSI property
alone would not amount to atonement.
Janata Party president
Subramanian Swamy said that the ADMK cadre had no reason to celebrate because
it was not an "honourable acquittal". Swamy, an appellant in the
Supreme Court, was the first to receive the sanction from Governor Dr. M.
Channa Reddy in March 1995 to prosecute Jayalalitha in one of the two cases.
The Supreme Court order did not amount to exoneration, he said. "The two
Judges have expressed anguish that despite the suspicion of Jayalalitha having
committed an offence and despite knowing that she was prepared to go to any
length to `save her skin', they were constrained by the four corners of the
legal system." He accused the DMK of conducting the case "very
badly".
Special Judge P.
Anbazhagan in October 2000 convicted and sentenced Jayalalitha to three years'
and two years' rigorous imprisonment in the TANSI cases. She was unable to
contest the Assembly elections in May 2001 after she was disqualified from
contesting the elections. However, in a controversial action, Governor M.
Fathima Beevi swore Jayalalitha in as Chief Minister after the ADMK won the
elections although Jayalalitha herself did not contest the polls. But the
Supreme Court, on September 21, 2001, struck down Jayalalitha's appointment and
she stepped down.
Subsequently, Justice N.
Dhinakar of the Madras High Court reversed the Special Judge's orders and
acquitted Jayalalitha and five others in the TANSI cases. This enabled her to
contest a byelection and get elected in February 2002. She was installed as
Chief Minister again.
JAYALALITHA became Chief
Minister for the first time in 1991 after the ADMK won in the Assembly
elections. On March 4, 1992, Jaya Publications, in which Jayalalitha and
Sasikala Natarajan were partners, bought land from TANSI Foundry Limited, a
subsidiary of TANSI, which is a State government undertaking. On September 30,
1992, Sasi Enterprises, in which Jayalalitha and Sasikala were again partners,
bought land from TANSI Enamelled Wires, another TANSI unit. Both the properties
were situated at the Guindy industrial estate in Chennai. When the purchase
became public, the DMK was quick to sense that Jayalalitha had committed an
offence under Section 169 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which bars public
servants from buying or bidding for certain (government) property. The party
then began a relentless legal battle.
At an ADMK conference in Madurai in June 1992, Jayalalitha
maintained that "there have been no mistakes or irregularities in Jaya
Publications buying the TANSI land". She said that TANSI had been unable
to sell the land for seven years. When tenders were invited for the third time
in November 1991 and not "many people" were keen on buying it, Jaya
Publications bought it at a price that was more than the "market
value", she claimed.
On September 16, 1992,
the DMK cadre, led by Karunanidhi, took out a procession in Chennai and
presented to the Governor a memorandum alleging 18 instances of corruption,
including the TANSI land deal, by the Jayalalitha government, and sought his
sanction to prosecute her. The Governor declined sanction.
R.S. Bharathi filed a
writ petition in the Madras High Court in 1993 praying that the sale of TANSI property
to Jaya Publications be cancelled as it involved the abuse of office. He thus
became the original complainant in the TANSI cases. Bharathi filed a private
complaint in June 1995 and the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai,
took the case on file. The complaint was against Jayalalitha for the purchase
of TANSI Foundry land in violation of Section 169 of the IPC and the Code of
Conduct for Ministers.
In 1993, Subramanian
Swamy presented a memorandum to Governor Channa Reddy and sought sanction from
him to prosecute Jayalalitha in the TANSI Foundry land deal and in a
controversy regarding the import of coal. Swamy received the sanction in March
1995. In May 1996, the DMK headed by Karunanidhi returned to power and set
about fulfilling its election promise to bring to trial all persons perceived
to be corrupt during the Jayalalitha regime. Nine cases of corruption were
instituted against Jayalalitha. The Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation
Department (CB-CID) of the Tamil Nadu Police filed the charge-sheet in the Jaya
Publications case on November 15, 1996. In the Sasi Enterprises case, it filed
the charge-sheet on October 22, 1997. The six accused in both the cases were: Jayalalitha
(Accused-1); Sasikala Natarajan (A-2); former Chairman and Managing Director of
TANSI T.R. Srinivasan (A-3); former Rural Industries Minister Mohammed Asif
(A-4); former Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) S.
Nagarajan (A-5); and Jayalalitha's former Additional Secretary R.
Karpoorasundarapandian (A-6).
One of the charges was
that Jaya Publications and Sasi Enterprises had bought the two pieces of
property at a price lower than the guideline/market value, and that had led to a
wrongful loss of Rs.3.5 crore and Rs.66 lakhs respectively to the government.
Since Jayalalitha bought these two pieces of property when she was Chief
Minister, she was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA).
According to the CB-CID,
the accused, between October 1991 and December 1992, conspired and enabled Jaya
Publications to purchase 3.07 acres and a superstructure measuring 2,698 square
metres belonging to TANSI Foundry below the guideline value, and the building
and the machinery were undervalued. While the guideline/market value was
Rs.7.32 lakhs a ground (2,400 sq ft), the land was sold to Jaya Publications at
Rs.3.01 lakhs. Thus, the pecuniary advantage gained by Jaya Publications amounted
to more than Rs.3.5 crore. This was a wrongful loss to the State government,
the charge-sheet said. The government suffered losses also because of the
consequent reduction in the stamp duty and the registration fee, it said. The
charge-sheet said Jayalalitha "abused her official position at every
stage" although no "public interest" was involved in the
transaction. The sale deed was executed on May 29, 1992, and the possession of
the property was given the same day. She and others were charged under
different Sections of the IPC, including 120-B (conspiracy) and 409 (criminal
breach of trust by a public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent), and
Sections 13(2) of the PCA read with 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d). Importantly, she was
charged under Section 169 of the IPC.
As a public servant, Jayalalitha
was not eligible to buy government property. By buying TANSI Foundry property,
she violated Section 169 of the IPC and breached the provisions of the Code of
Conduct for Ministers, the charge-sheet said. The Code of Conduct, originally
drafted by the Centre, was adopted by the Tamil Nadu government and issued as a
Government Order. The Code entails that Ministers should not buy government
property.
In the Sasi Enterprises
case, the charge-sheet alleged that Jayalalitha and Sasikala obtained a
monetary advantage of Rs.66.11 lakhs because Sasi Enterprise bought land belonging to TANSI
Enamelled Wires at less than the guideline value. It said that newspapers
carried advertisements on October 10, 1991 with an offer to sell the land,
buildings and machinery belonging to TANSI Enamelled Wires. There were three
responses and all of them were rejected on the grounds that the offers made
were below the guideline value. Another advertisement was run on December 12,
1991, and there were four offers, including one from Sasi Enterprises.
The charge-sheet alleged
that the six accused entered into a criminal conspiracy between 1991 and 1993
and helped Sasi Enterprises in the purchase of the land, buildings and
machinery of TANSI Enamelled Wires by undervaluing them. Although the guideline
value of the land was Rs.90.53 lakhs, the amount mentioned in the sale deed was
only Rs.53.04 lakhs. In the case of the building, the sale deed was executed at
Rs.16.25 lakhs against the guideline value of Rs.25.66 lakhs. Besides, the
machinery was also undervalued, the charge-sheet said. The State government
also suffered losses because of the consequent reduction in the registration
fee and the stamp duty, it said. Jayalalitha and Sasikala gained Rs.66.11 lakhs
in the process, which was a wrongful loss to the government, according to the
charge-sheet.
On June 10 and July 19,
1999, Special Judge P. Anbazhagan framed charges against the six accused. Jayalalitha
went to the High Court, asking for her discharge in both the cases. On January
13, 2000, Justice S. Thangaraj of the High Court set aside the order of the Special Court. He
said that since the Code of Conduct barring Ministers from buying government
property was not a statute, any breach of it would not amount to an offence
under Section 169 of the IPC. The DMK government challenged this in the Supreme
Court. It "erased" the ruling of Justice Thangaraj and ordered that
the trial in the two cases continue and conclude as per law. So the trial
resumed in Anbazhagan's court. In his orders on October 9, 2000, Anbazhagan
ruled that "the first accused" had dishonestly abused her office and
bought TANSI property at less than the guideline value. He ordered the
confiscation of the property. All the six accused were convicted and sentenced
to imprisonment.
JAYALALITHA and the other
accused appealed in the High Court. On December 4, 2001, Justice N. Dhinakar
acquitted all the six in both the cases. His important findings, in two
separate judgments, were: TANSI property was no government property and so
there was no question of Jayalalitha having bought government property; there
was no specific law that barred a public servant from buying property; the Code
of Conduct had no statutory force; the "market value does not lie in the
property contemplated to be purchased but in the mind of the person
contemplating to purchase the property"; and so forth.
Challenging these
judgments, Bharathi and Subramanian Swamy filed special leave petitions in the
Supreme Court. Bharathi said his appeal raised important questions of law on
whether a Chief Minister or any public servant, while in office, could purchase
property belonging to the government; whether the Madras High Court was right
in deciding that TANSI property was not government property; and whether the
High Court was right when it ruled that the Code of Conduct for Ministers did
not have the force of law.
T.R. Andhyarujina, senior
advocate who appeared for Bharathi, told the Supreme Court that 3.26 acres out
of 4.811 acres of TANSI Foundry land was meant to be sold specifically to Tamil
Nadu Sugar Federation Limited, another government organisation. For that
purpose, the Collector of Chennai fixed the value at Rs.3 lakhs a ground.
During a meeting of officials, held on October 14, 1991 and presided over by
Chief Minister Jayalalitha, the proposal to sell 3.26 acres of TANSI Foundry
land to the Sugar Federation was approved. Contrary to this decision, A-3 (T.R.
Srinivasan) called for tenders on November 21, 1991, counsel said. He argued
that the real motive was to sell the land to Jaya Publications at Rs.3 lakhs a
ground by using the valuation fixed by the Collector.
Counsel said that by
inviting tenders A-3 had abused power, which would attract the provisions of
Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the PCA. The tender was intended to facilitate the
participation of Jaya Publications, of which Jayalalitha was a partner, and the
conspiracy to purchase the property by her firm began at this point, counsel
argued. Thus the accused had committed the offence of criminal conspiracy
besides the offence of criminal misconduct, under Sections 13(1)(c) and (d) of
the PCA, and offences under Sections 409 and 169 of the IPC, he said.
There was pecuniary loss
to the government in the sale of TANSI Foundry land to Jaya Publications,
Andhyarujina argued. About 15 days prior to the acceptance of Jaya
Publications' offer of Rs.3.01 lakhs a ground, R.R. Industries' offer to buy
the adjacent land belonging to TANSI Enamelled Wires at Rs.4.12 lakhs a ground
was rejected since it was less than the guideline value of Rs.7.32 lakhs. But
while accepting Jaya Publications' offer of Rs.3.01 lakhs, this reasoning was
reversed. In a Board resolution, counsel said, A-3 had noted that although the
offer of Jaya Publications was less than the guideline value of Rs.7.32 lakhs,
it was marginally higher than the Collectors' valuation by Rs.1,000. Thus, according
to the senior counsel, the accused had also committed the offence of criminal
breach of trust.
N. Natarajan, senior
advocate who appeared for Bharathi, argued that there was a conspiracy among
the public servants concerned in the case.
He advanced arguments
based on the introduction of the following Sections in the PC Act of 1988:
Section 2(c)(viii)
includes a new definition of a public servant. It says that a "public
servant" means "any person who holds an office by virtue of which he
is authorised or required to perform any public duty".
The phrase "public
duty" in Section 2(b) has been defined as "a duty in the discharge of
which the State, the public or the community at large has an interest".
In Section 13 (d), a new
facet of the offence of criminal misconduct has been included in sub-clause
iii, he said. According to it, a public servant is said to commit the offence
of criminal misconduct if he, "while holding office as a public servant,
obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any
public interest".
Natarajan asserted that
if any public servant, while holding office, obtains any valuable thing or
pecuniary advantage, it has to be necessarily for public interest and public
interest alone. If it is not so, it would attract the offence of criminal
misconduct under Section 13(d)(iii), he said. Selling TANSI property at a lower
price is certainly not in pursuit of any public interest, the senior counsel
said. Therefore, a Chief Minister who consciously bought TANSI property for the
benefit of her firms was guilty of misconduct under Section 13(d)(iii) of the
PCA, he contended.
Natarajan said abuse of
power was evident from the fact that A-1 was both the buyer and the seller.
Advocates R. Mohan and R.
Shanmugasundaram also appeared for Bharathi.
Swamy, who argued in
person, said that the land was to be originally parcelled out into plots and
sold to fetch higher prices. But this decision was not implemented. The entire
sale, therefore, was against public interest and this caused loss to the
government, he contended.
K.K. Venugopal, senior
advocate, who appeared for Jayalalitha, argued that the land was purchased in
open auction and Jaya Publications' offer was the highest. There was,
therefore, no illegality in the transaction. If Section 169 of the IPC,
Venugopal argued, were to attract an offence, there must be prohibition by law
on the purchase of certain property by public servants. The prohibition that
the other side alleged was a prohibition in the Code of Conduct. But this
prohibition not being a law, there was no prohibition in law on a public
servant purchasing government property. The so-called offence could at best be
only an unethical act and not a criminal offence. Besides, the Code of Conduct
was not applicable to Chief Ministers, he said.
TANSI property, Jayalalitha's
counsel argued, was the property of a company. It was a company owned by the
government. But TANSI was an independent entity and its property could not be
government property, he contended.
The weekly ‘Outlook’
published an article under the caption ‘Conscience Calls’ in its issue dt.2nd
Dec. 2003, which pointed out the premise on which Jayalalitha was acquitted by
the Supreme Court, contradicted with the rulings of Division Benches of it in
earlier cases.
"Irrespective of whether we reach the
conclusion that A-1 [Jayalalitha] is guilty of the offences with which she is
charged or not, she must atone for the same by answering her conscience in the
light of what we have stated."
-- Justices S. Rajendra Babu and P. Venkatarama
Reddi in their judgment in the TANSI cases.
Immediately after hearing of her acquittal, the
Tamil Nadu chief minister J. Jayalalitha "atoned" by answering the
call of her "conscience"—she rushed to the Aadipureeswarar Udanurai
Vadivudai Amman temple on the outskirts of Chennai with friend Sasikala
Natarajan in tow.
Since the setting up of three special courts by the
previous DMK government to expedite trial in the 12 major cases of corruption
against the ADMK leader, there's been uncertainty over her political career.
And it was in the TANSI cases that the special judge P.Anbazhagan convicted
Jayalalitha, Sasikala and four others on October 9, 2000. Jayalalitha was
sentenced to three years RI in the Jaya Publications case; and to two years in
the Sasi Enterprises case.
This disqualified Jayalalitha from contesting the
May 2001 Assembly poll, despite which she assumed chief ministership and was
asked to step down in September 2001 by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme
Court. She bounced back as CM when the Madras High Court judge N.Dinakar
acquitted her in December 2001.
Two appeals were filed by DMK's legal wing secretary
R.S. Bharathi, and the Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy, challenging
the acquittal. Now, after a seven-year trial spread over three courts,
Jayalalitha stands exonerated. But she still has other legal battles to fight.
Just a week earlier, another bench of the Supreme Court had transferred the Rs.
66.65 crore disproportionate assets case to the Bangalore High Court to ensure
fair trial.
When the contentious Tamil Nadu Small Scale
Industries property—3.07 acres of land belonging to the state-owned TANSI
Foundry and TANSI Enamel Wire—was purchased by Jayalalitha and Sasikala on 29
May 1992, Jayalalitha as a public servant was seen to attract Section
13(1)(d)(iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Also, Section 169 of
IPC states that public servants legally bound not to purchase certain property
shall be punished if they do so. But the apex court pointed out that what is
"legally bound not to" is not defined.
The SC bench judgment—52 pages long and pronounced
14 months after arguments were concluded—is premised on the fact that TANSI is
not government property. But in the Mysore Paper Mills Limited case of 2002, a
division bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the appellant company "is
nothing but an instrumentality and agency of the state government".
In 2001, dealing with the issue of disinvestment of
Balco, a three-judge Supreme Court bench, which included P.V. Reddi, had noted,
"BALCO [is] a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution." Says lawyer K.M.Vijayan of the Madras High Court,
"What matters here is the interpretation of 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. This
act is about prevention of corruption and not about evidencing corruption and
meting out punishment."
The judgment came down heavily in its moral
disapproval of the property transactions. But asks one lawyer: "If it
immoral, how is not illegal in the constitutional sense?" As part of
atonement, the SC bench asked Jayalalitha and Sasikala to return the TANSI
property to the state unconditionally. "However," wonders Vijayan,
"when Sasikala filed an affidavit seeking to return the property, the same
bench on September 24, 2002 termed it 'irrelevant' to the proceedings under
way. Then, what's the logic behind asking them to return it now?"
Moreover, since Jayalalitha denied that the
transaction bore her signature in the trial court, how can she
"return" the property now? Says Vijayan: "The Supreme Court must
have taken into account Jayalalitha's conduct in the trial court. In the US, she would
have been charged with perjury. In the Lewinsky case, Clinton was pulled up for lying."
A Code of Conduct for Ministers was brought into
force by a 1968 Government Order. The Code requires a minister to "refrain
from buying from, or selling to, the Government any immovable property".
However, the two-judge SC bench observed that Jayalalitha had not violated the
Code of Conduct since it "did not have a statutory status". Says
lawyer Sriram Panchu, "The implication is that a minister can go about
acquiring state-owned property and not be punished for the same. This is
disturbing."
If the Code for ministers does not have a binding
value, then why have it at all, is the question even letters-to-editors are
asking. Some lawyers point out that the SC position incidentally also calls
into question the statutory status of all Government Orders (GOs). At the same
time, if the Election Commission's Code of Conduct can be implemented
effectively, why not the Code of Conduct for ministers? Most recently, Sonia
Gandhi was pulled up by the EC for using a Chattisgarh state helicopter.
Legal experts may debate this judgment endlessly,
but Jayalalitha today is a relieved woman. On the way to her Poes Garden
residence, a hoarding shows Amma lighting the lamp against the backdrop of an India map, and the caption reads: When will you
enlighten India?
Soon enough.
In ‘Express India’ blog the following comments were
posted:
Judgement in TANSI case
The judgement contains morals and advices to the
accused rather than adjudgement of the matter based on facts. the entire
judgement is within the limits of committedness.
Gattoji Saibaba, 25-11-2003 at 1237 hours IST
Supreme court
This verdict on TANSI corruption case is not
unexpected. Like any other branch of Indian government, justice can be bought
with right price, though the price need not be in rupees. Indian law &
order and court system are as corrupt as other branches of the system. Like in
any other system or countries around the world, India also has two tiered rights
system. Powerful and certain castes will have a different level playing field
than the rest of the Sheeple. So called Indian democracy can not be very
different. Democracy is the best form of government (or set up) to enjoy least
accountability and cyclically distributed looting by alternate groups of
crooks. Periodic elections give them such a cover. Democracy is based on a very
basic and yet deeply flawed assumption that people are capable of understand
and elect who should govern. Most of the dishonest behaviour of this society is
rooted on caste and religion. Given that a vast majority cannot read and think
properly, educated and powerful will always enjoy the fruit with least sweat.
Krish Suresh, 25-11-2003 at 0157 hours IST
Lets perhaps hope
I am really pleased to aware that our esteemed
judiciary system restrains themselves not to comment on Jayalalitha's
'national` interest to buy TANSI land. I believe supreme court suppose that
Jaya bought the land not for her own interest but for beloved 'serving' people.
Things can happen in India
such that if your make trial case on our dear most convicted politicians, they
can come out with 'sanctify certificate' from our judiciary system like this
case. And my dear politicians! ready yaar. you don’t have anymore problems.
Cool guys, don’t you still see Mother Terasa in Jayalalitha!. if you don’t, I
am sorry, you are out of our indianese-system. Apart from fun... Sorry I
can’t contain myself saying Lets perhaps hope, god STILL can save our great
India.
Senthil, 24-11-2003 at 1955 hours IST
Supreme court verdict
The Supreme Court verdict is a paradox. The judges
are appealing to JJ's conscience (I applaud the judges in their optimism that
she has one). I guess this verdict can be taken as a cue that cases won't be
filed against anyone in India,
rather people can live according to their conscience. The judges also said they
have doubts that she did something wrong, then what the hell do another
inquiry. god only can save Tamil Nadu I guess.
Hari, 24-11-2003 at 1949 hours IST
let's not start castigating the only functioning institution in india
I am not surprised that there is no legal evidence
in this case. Someone as powerful as Jayalalitha can easily get rid of all and
any evidence against her. Hopefully, her time will come soon. In the meanwhile
let us pray for our country.
Vishalvishal, 24-11-2003 at 1944 hours IST
Lost all the hopes
Since the delivery of this judgement was taking such
a long time, I thought a politician is going to be convicted for corruption at
last! Now, there is no hope at all to save this country. Even the judiciary is
no longer the hope for common man. Hundreds of innocent people are in jail on
"Suspicion". If there is a pick pocket of Rs 50, based on a complaint
police can keep a person in Jail. But if you loot crores, one has to go court
after court to get justice. At last, of course, Supreme court may acquit the
corrupt individual for want of sufficient evidence! This is yet another proof
that Politicians are untouchable by law. They can murder, collaborate with
terrorists, loot as much as possible, but there is no law in this country to
punish them. All judges can do is to appeal these corrupt people to check their
conscience. That’s all! Even God cannot save this country. Good citizens,
please move out if you can, as soon as possible. This is a land of corrupt
people who are protected by all the institutions of the country.
Surendar, 24-11-2003 at 1847 hours IST
SHAME
S.J.FERNANDO, 24-11-2003 at 1802 hours IST
Drop all cases
I don’t belong to any political party but a keen
onlooker of Indian politics - particularly of TN. We had been witnesses to What
happened in JJ's first tenure. If she can get away with what is an apparent misuse
of power, there is some thing wrong with our Judiciary. Why waste so much money
on trials and special courts on cases on politicians. Simply drop all of them.
Jeba Suresh, 24-11-2003 at 1713 hours IST
Well, the judiciary IS INDEED CORRUPT!
Yes, I repeat that! And I don't think ANY
INSTITUTION (that includes the so-called "Supreme Court") is ABOVE
the ideal of a free and just INDIA.
Remember, after all, ALL these institutions incl. the Press are there to SERVE
the public and help them achieve a free and prosperous AND Just India, the
dream that millions of freedom fighters cherished when they put their LIVES on
the line and chased out the British. The so-called "judges" are NOT
greater than them. In fact, these "judges" should have the
"conscience" rather than the politicians and try to think whether it
is the Supreme Court of Justice or Supreme
Injustice Court! Even a common man knows that if
not for graft and grease, these politicians couldn't have amassed so much
wealth-what does a "learned" "judge" do? Oh yeah,
"appeals" to the "conscience" of a corrupt politician, and
lest you get him wrong, says that he has "strong suspicion" on this
corrupt beast, but the "evidence" is found wanting...!Wait, wait,
more such "gems" are to come our way and it is the first step that
this "court" has taken to become a laughing stock and consign itself
to SUPREME IRRELEVANCE!
Ram, 24-11-2003 at 1657 hours IST
SC VERDICT ON JAYALALITHA
Henceforth, if anyone wants to file a case against
any politician, he/she should have caught them red-handed for having accepted illegal
gratification, that too in front of thousands of people duly recorded,
notorised by Notary Pubic and in front of few Supreme Court Judges. Otherwise,
politician will be acquitted by our Honourable Supreme Court. Great Judgement
for our Great Country.
Ragrang, 24-11-2003 at 1612 hours IST
Disappointing and Painful Judgement!
Indeed, it's really pathetic & disappointing to
hear the verdict despite the fact that even a common-man can sense the
wrong-doing in this case. The most painful part of the judgement is that the
judges themselves are strongly suspicious on some wrong-doing and violation of
rules by Jayalalitha & co, but they had to still let them free because
there are no legal evidence to prove it! If the judges feel that the accused
are involved in corruption & misusing the power even though there is no
legal evidence, why don't they order for a re-trial by CBI or some independent
organisation to investigate it again? Although I'm a proud Indian Citizen, I
humbly feel that this kind of stupid & absurd things can happen only in India...the
so-called largest democratic country in the world!!! I think that this kind of
judgements will only encourage more & more politicians and government
servants to misuse the power & loot the tax-payer's money. It's really
shame on our judicial system and a black day for Indian political system! I
don't think even God can save our country as long as such ruthless & greedy
politicians live in our country! Jai Hind!
Prabakar, 24-11-2003 at 1458 hours IST
Acquittal of Chief Minister Jayalalitha
Wonderful Judgement! If supreme court is every
thing, why lower courts? Every Indian citizen must learn from this incidence
there no effect even in SC if there is no legal evidence.
Dr.G.Muralikrishnan, 24-11-2003 at 1431 hours IST
TANSI verses JJ
if there was no proper evidence regd. TANSI in the
side of JJ, then why should she moved some crores to AP. Justify...
Mahesh kannan, 24-11-2003 at 1411 hours IST
Bottom Line
The bottom line is, you can be as corrupt as you
want and still get away saying that all cases against you are politically
motivated. As per the today’s judgement, if u r politician then judgement is
served by "conscience", If that is the case then why do u need COURTS
[off course it's there only for ordinary people like u and me]. Using this as
an yard stick I think all cases against all politicians should be droped
immediate and ask them to serve the sentence provided their
"conscience" agress to it. Haa Haa Haaa....
Nayak, 24-11-2003 at 1357 hours IST
Great News
Jaya knows how to get around with the apex court. I
think she can start a tutorial about this to others like Laloo, Advani,
Amarmani, Telgi etc.
Nayak, 24-11-2003 at 1321 hours IST
Aquital of JJ by Supreme Court
It is a same on the judicial system in India. The
biggest question is why do we need lower courts when they take too much time to
deal with a case. Moreover, if the judgement was so simple enough, why must it
take more than a year. It requires a long way for the Indian Judiciary to go
before it is trusted by all the people.
Karthik, 24-11-2003 at 1229 hours IST
These were the views expressed by the media just ten
years back and before on Jayalalitha. The crook Jayalalitha may not feel guilty
and dare to comment on others and decry anybody she wants. She is yet to come
out of the woods and shamelessly resorts to play hide and seek with judiciary
in spite of being pulled up several times by the highest court for her delaying
tactics. Does she have moral right to demand resignation of others when
allegations are made against them, with such a record of her own? If at all she
had a modicum of honesty, she must have quit public life for ever when she was
asked to ‘atone her consciousness’ by the Supreme Court. The apex court
addressed a wrong person.
But can the media put behind her entire record,
sanctify her and project her as a crusader against corruption? Will it not
tantamount to a disservice to the nation and people? Let them give a call to
their conscience!
No comments:
Post a Comment