Malice, Vindictiveness! Thy name is Jayalalitha

Among the despicable birth traits of Jayalalitha, as revealed on several occasions by persons close to her since her childhood and transparently observed by people from her public life, are envy, malice and vindictiveness. Invariably everybody associated with her, possibly with the exception of her aide Sasikala, had some time or the other been affected by these ill-traits of her. Tamil Nadu being unfortunate to have this unpredictable and whimsical lady as its Chief Minister for the third time, is the worst affected of all. She had been inhumanly and mercilessly envious, malicious and vengeful against all types of her rivals - political, professional and of her personal life also. In wrecking vengeance, she cares two hoots for ethics, morality, legality or constitutionality.

Here are some of her vengeful acts in the past:

During her first regime in 1991-96, she ordered arrest of Muthu, a former assistant of MGR and In-charge of ‘MGR memorial’ in Arcot Road, Chennai and placed him illegally under arrest foisting a case of possessing drugs until the court acquitted him. The false case against Muthu, was foisted because, as faithful servant of MGR he once revealed to him some undesirable acts of her due to which he (MGR) was angry against her. That was more than sufficient for her to take revenge when she got to power. A film actress, who reportedly refused to oblige Jayalalitha and ‘entertain’ the guests of powers that be, was booked under SITA, she was later acquitted by the court.

Since advocate Shanmugasundaram was preparing petition on behalf of R.S.Bharathi against the purchase of TANSI land by her, auto-bound gangs caused grievous injuries to him, including 9 punctures in his lungs. Much more heinous was that electricity was cut for the K.J.Hospital on Poonamalee High Road when the injured advocate Shanmugasundaram was taken there for emergency treatment. Another advocate M.Vijayan of ‘Voice of Consumer Forum’ filed public interest litigations in Madras High Court against her misdeeds, and hence he was attacked by auto-bound gangs, causing 27 fractures to him.

She approved the SPIC disinvestment, much against the objection of the then Industries Secretary Chandralekha (also her close friend since MGR days), and she was transferred as Archives Commissioner. That was not enough. Jayalalitha hired hooligans and acid was thrown at Chandralekha’s face. Surla of Mumbai, who was the accused, allegedly died of AIDS inside the prison! (?)

Since the then Chief Election Commissioner T.N.Seshan was not abetting her anti-democratic methods in the poll process, he was refused room in the State Guest House and Taj Coromandel Hotel was ransacked by her auto-bound hooligans’ just because Taj allotted him room to stay. As Seshan visited Chennai despite her warnings to him, the entire GST Road in front of Chennai airport was blocked by thousands of her partymen virtually laying seize of the airport. The Chief Secretary and the DGP refused to clear them from the road, even when the CEC told them to clear.

Also the then Union Minister P. Chidambaram was way laid and attacked by more than six ADMK MLAs at Tiruchi as he had opposed Jayalalitha in 1996 elections, as TMC functionary. V.N.Sudhakaran, her foster son was booked under Narcotics Act as he went away from her with lot of money. Two Muslim brothers were also booked along with him. Sherija Banu of Madurai, reportedly friendly with Sasikala’s husband Natarajan, was booked under Narcotics Act. Then Mayiladurai MP, Mani Shankar Iyer differed with Jayalalitha’s views on Sonia Gandhi at a government function in Nagapattinam and hence he was waylaid as he was returning from the function by her men led by the Party’s Oganising Secretary. Her auditor Rajasekhar was attacked severely inside Poes Garden premises itself (allegedly by the two ladies) and ran out with bleeding face and body, because of difference of opinion amongst them.

Since Justice A.R.Lakshmanan (then Madras High Court) delivered judgements uncomfortable to her government, she arrested his son-in-law Kumar under Narcotics Act. Since Justice M.Srinivasan (Madras High Court) was not inclined to give judgements as she wanted, his house was attacked by auto-bound hooligans; electricity and water supply to his home were disconnected. The Kodaikanal International School was forcibly occupied by her men, throwing out school children at the dead of night. It was Justice Ashok Kumar (the District Judge, Dindigul) who restored it to the school by judicial intervention. For this reason he was transferred to Dharmapuri and Tiruvannamalai, to cause personal inconvenience to him. He faced physical threats too.

An old couple in Dr. Rangachari Road, Alwarpet were attacked by Goondas in their house because they refused to sell their house to her. Gangai Amaran had to sell his Paiyanoor farm house because she took a fancy to that. The Amritanjan Bungalow in Nageswara Rao Park Road, Mylapore was forcefully taken procession by her men.

The above mentioned acts of Jayalalitha, both official and non-official, using police and official machinery and personal goons, have been recalled to show that Jayalalitha, in her malice, vengeance and vindictiveness against others will go to any level and no one howsoever high they may be are exceptions.  Her victims include the Chief Election Commissioner of India, High Court and District Court judges, Union Ministers, IAS officers, advocates, auditors…

At the peak of her malicious vindictiveness was the midnight arrest of Kalaignar in 2001. Her police arrested Kalaignar (then 79 years old) in the dead of night, dragged him through the staircase as he could not walk so fast as the agile policemen in his own residence. For protecting against the inhuman act, Union Ministers Murasoli Maran and T.R.Baalu were arrested.  The police used all force to bodily lift Maran and dump him in police van. As he had just then undergone bypass surgery, he fell ill thereafter and never recovered. Justice Ashok Kumar (then Principal Sessions Judge) questioned the prosecution on the method of arrest of Kalaignar and Union Ministers. The DMK procession to condemn the arrest of Kalaignar was brutally attacked by organized goondas, with full aid and abetment of the police, but she meticulously planned a judicial enquiry and cleared all her misdeeds of any legal allegations. Curiously none of the hooligans who caused death and serious injury to hundreds of DMK men were ever booked under Goondas Act. Thiru M.K.Stalin was also arrested. They had arrested Kalaignar and Stalin on the purported allegation of misappropriation of funds and poor quality of construction of nine flyovers in Chennai when Stalin was the Mayor of Chennai Corporation. An enquiry committee of experts to inquire into quality of construction of the flyovers was constituted and they filed their reports also which was never released, in spite of challenged by the DMK. Leaders of various political parties in India and all newspapers condemned Jayalalitha for the barbaric midnight arrest.

This being the track record of Jayalalitha during her last two reigns in the years 1991-96 and 2001-06, borne out of her innate qualities of malice and vindictiveness, she continues with more vigour and more pointedly against her arch rival DMK now.

Immediately after coming to power, this notorious grabber of Dalit lands (at Siruthavur), public path (in Kodanad) and properties of others (in Paiyanoor, Kodanaad etc) and even government lands (TANSI), announced formation of Anti-Land Grabbing cells in police in every district and Special Courts to try these cases. As was obvious, immediately the police started arresting number of DMK functionaries without any enquiry and remanded them in prisons, giving very wide publicity in the media. But the anti-land grabbing cells were formed only to get complaints pertaining to the years from 2006 to 2011 during the DMK rule and not prior to that. The constitution of the cell and courts were challenged by DMK MP R.Thamaraiselvan in the Madras High Court. Thamaraiselvan, in his petition alleged the GO was issued on political considerations which violated various laws including the Transfer of Property Act and the Special Relief Act and the Constitution. The government’s action amounted to usurping the powers of civil courts. The petition is admitted and pending with the Bench comprising Justice K.N.Basha and Paul Vasanthakumar.

The GO dated August 11, 2011 of the Home Secretary, by which 25 special courts have been constituted to exclusively try land grabbing cases in the State, was challenged in the Madras High Court.

The first bench comprising Chief Justice MY Eqbal and Justice TS Sivagnanam, before which the public interest writ petition from advocate P Ganesan of Anna Nagar came up for hearing, referred the matter to the Special Bench comprising Justice KN Basha and Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar, before which the writ petitions challenging the earlier GO dated July 28 this year, which constituted special land grabbing cells, were pending. The petition sought to declare the GO as ultra vires and violative of various constitutional provisions and to strike down the same.

Petitioner contended that when more than 390 offences were available in the IPC, which endangered the society, human body, religion, public health, safety, morality, public justice and independent rights, there was no reasonable classification in constituting such special courts for exclusive trial of land grabbing cases alone.

The legality of the cells set up for crackdown on land-grabbing in all but three districts in Tamil Nadu came under judicial scrutiny,with a batch of public interest writ petitions questioning the very legal basis of the drive.

A specially constituted division bench comprising Justice K N Basha and Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar began hearing the PILs,which were argued by senior counsel R Viduthalai and P Wilson,besides N Jothi and advocate-general A Navaneethakrishnan.The specific issue before the special bench is whether the police can be vested with the right to probe matters relating to disputes over property title and rent control which are civil in nature.

Assailing the government order (GO) dated July 28 which proposed to establish 36 anti-land grabbing cells in seven police commissionerates,28 districts and one at the state police headquarters,Viduthalai submitted that the order was illegal because it neither offers definition for land grab nor lays down guidelines to handle the alleged land-grab cases.

Wilson submitted that it would sound the death knell to all civil and rent control courts, as under Article 162 of the Constitution, the power of the state to issue executive order is clearly defined. The GO tends to encroach upon the occupied area, and hence it is a nullity.

Advocate Jothi said that though no check period had been mentioned in the GO, the chief ministers statement, which formed the basis for the formation of the cells, restricted it to a period in which a rival political party was in power. It is unsustainable.

The petitioner submitted that the term land-grab has not been defined in any criminal law, and the GO is also vague and without any clarity on the issue. The petitioners wanted the court to quash the GO and sought interim protection to the accused.

But after the initial euphoria created by the ADMK regime by arresting so many DMK functionaries and damaging their reputation in the eyes of the public, they could not make any headway. The Anti-land grab cells of the police could not file any chargesheet and the Special Court had also not started functioning, which show that false cases had been foisted against DMK functionaries.

Jayalalitha, has no spine to face the Disproportionate Assets case against her now under trial in Bangalore Special Court and protracting the trial for more than 15 years  by making flimsy appeals after appeals to higher courts, creating world record in seeking adjournments and trying to misuse the DVAC whenever she returns to power to get her case diluted and extricate herself. But she fights no shy in ordering the DVAC to file Disproportionate Assets cases against former Ministers of the DMK. But other than creating sensations by conducting raids on the residences and offices of them and trying to damage their reputation, the DVAC could not file any chargesheet so far.

Another Act Jayalalitha regime always misused to detain political leaders for some months without trial is Goondas Act.

Once the most feared provision, detention under the Goondas Act has now been reduced by the ADMK regime to a mockery, with just about seven per cent of the detainees serving out the full detention period of one year. During the past 13 months, beginning June 2011, Tamil Nadu witnessed a total of 1,926 detentions under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act (popularly called ‘Goondas Act’). Of them, just 146 people actually completed the whole one year in detention.

“While 1,291 people were released as per the orders of the High Court or the Supreme Court, 489 walked out due to the intervention of the statutory advisory board headed by a retired judge of the High Court. “Not all detention orders of the 146 persons, who completed their one-year term in prison, were upheld by court/board. Many of them simply spent the whole term in jails, without questioning the detentions,” a High Court source said.

Interestingly, 76 women too had been detained under the act during the period, and the detentions of all but one woman were quashed by the court/board. “The only woman, housed at the special prison for women at Vellore, spent the full period because she could not afford to hire the services of a lawyer,” the source said.

Commenting on the abysmally low confirmation rate of preventive detentions, a former prosecutor said that indiscriminate and ill-prepared detentions will dilute the deterrence value of the provision. Such custody of goondas is called “Preventive Detention” which enables the authorities to detain a person without trial in order to prevent him/her from committing certain types of offences.  However, such preventive detention cannot be made as substitute for the ordinary law and absolve the investigating authorities of their normal functions of investigating crime which the detenue may have committed.

Recently, a Supreme Court of India Bench comprising Justice Altamas Kabir and   Justice S S Nijjar has ruled that:

A person cannot be detained under a preventive detention law so as to keep the detenue under perpetual custody, as authorities are bound to discharge their normal functions of investigating a crime and bring the accused to trial.

The DMK Executive Committee resolution on June 22 shows how vindictively the ADMK regime invoked Goondas Act against DMK functionaries and former Ministers. But all of them were released. The Goondas Act cases were quashed.

Madras High Court on 18.01.12 set aside the detention of a former DMK MLA under the Goondas Act in an alleged land grabbing case. Allowing a habeas corpus petition, a Division Bench comprising Justices P Jyothimani and M Duraisamy directed that the former MLA B Ranganathan and another accused Gouri Shankar be set at liberty forthwith, unless their presence was required in connection with some other case. The judges set aside the August 8, 2011 order by the city Police Commissioner detaining Ranganathan, arrested in connection with a land grabbing case, under the stringent Goondas Act. Ranganathan was detained under the act five days after his arrest on August 3 last year. In his petition, Ranganathan had alleged that the detaining authority passed the order without considering the fact that there was a long standing civil dispute over the title of the property which he had been accused of having grabbed. ‘This clearly illustrates that there was total non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the detention order,’ he contended.

The Madras High Court set aside an order of August 2011 detaining Tiruvarur district secretary of the DMK K. Kalaivanan under the Goondas Act. Kalaivanan was detained on August 4 on the orders of Tiruvarur District Collector. Challenging the detention, his wife, Sinthanai Kalaivanan, filed a habeas corpus petition seeking the production of her husband before the court and setting him at liberty. Three cases had been registered against him, including one relating to alleged murder. In its order, a Division Bench of Justices C. Nagappan and T. Sudanthiram said that the Supreme Court had laid down that when a person was in judicial remand, in order to clamp an order of detention, the detaining authority was bound to consider the real possibility of the detainee coming out on bail in the case in which he had been remanded and should express satisfaction over the same. In the present case, though the detaining authority had referred to the judicial remand of the detainee, on the dismissal of the bail petition filed by Kalaivanan in the ground case, had omitted to consider the real possibility of the detainee coming out on bail and no satisfaction had been expressed by him in the grounds of detention. Such omission would vitiate the detention order. On this ground alone, the detention was liable to be set aside. The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court quashed the detention of Essor Gobi under the Goondas Act.

Holding that the delay on the part of the authorities to consider the representation of the detenu and dispose it within a stipulated time, the bench comprising Justice M Jaichandren and Justice S Nagamuthu set aside the detention order passed by the district collector on August 31. The bench directed the detenue to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case or cause.

The Madras High Court bench also quashed the detention of a DMK functionary, P Minnal Kodi, under the Goondas Act. After the regime change, the state police arrested DMK functionary in Madurai and subsequently detained them under the Goondas Act. However, most of them got their Goondas detention order quashed against them.

When the matter came up for hearing before the bench comprising Justice K N Basha and Justice M Venugopal, B Kumar, the senior counsel for the petitioner said the detention order was vitiated on the ground of non-application of mind of the detaining authority. He further pointed out that a representation was sent on September 17 to the Home Secretary on behalf of the detenue and it is the bounden duty of the authority that it was disposed of without any undue delay. After hearing the submission, the bench quashed the detention order and set the detenu at liberty.

The preventive detention of ‘Pottu’ Suresh under the Goondas Act was quashed by the Madras High Court. The government detained Suresh under the stringent Goondas Act by way of an order issued on July 25, 2011. Since then, he has been lodged at the central prison in Palayamkottai. A division bench of Justices C Nagappan and T Sudanthiram, allowing the habeas corpus petition filed by R L Asokan, said, “In the present case, the details of the bail orders in similar cases have not been given and hence the subjective satisfaction expressed by the detaining authority can only be termed as ipse dixit (a declaration that is so emphatic no supporting evidence is necessary) not based on cogent materials. Hence, the order of detention is vitiated.”

The judges said the detaining authority’s observations that Suresh’s activities were detrimental to the maintenance of public peace and order was not based on any material. The judges also observed that they could not brush aside easily the contention of Suresh’s counsel that there was no nexus between the alleged culpable activity of Suresh and his detention. “The ground instance is stale,” the counsel submitted.

Perhaps the ADMK government has not fared so worse in any other field than in its use of Goondas Act detention, where every politician detained by it under the stringent law in the recent past has wriggled out of custody. “It is cent per cent failure for the government,” rued a serving law officer, admitting that not a single detention order had been upheld by a court of law so far.

The Goondas Act is usually invoked against people who would cause disturbance to public order and under its provisions, an accused can be detained for a period of one year without any scope for bail.

Already, the principal seat and the Madurai bench of the High Court quashed about a dozen detention orders issued to keep people like Madurai DMK worker  ‘Pottu’ Suresh and ‘Attack’ Pandi, DMK’s Tiruvarur district secretary Poondi Kalaivanan, etc. Ranganathan too was ordered to be released, the only political personality awaiting orders on his detention was Dhanasekaran, former DMK councilor from KK Nagar, who too was released on May 24, 2012.

Plenty of others too who have succeeded in shattering their Goondas Act detention walked out of prisons. They include S R Gopi, Minnalkodi, Ochu Balu, V K Gurusamy (all from Madurai), and Kudamuruti Sekar from Tiruvarur.

The Madras High Court on May 24 quashed the order detaining a former DMK councillor under the Goondas Act. Allowing a petition by the detenu’s wife, a Division Bench of Justices Elipe Dharma Rao and M. Venugopal said that the detention order was illegal and unjustified as it was not in accordance with the procedure established by law. The petitioner’s counsel said that the detention order was passed without the application of mind. The incident in the ground case could have been dealt with under the ordinary law of the land. There was no necessity to invoke preventive detention provisions. In the order, the judges said that it could not be said that Dhanasekaran had acted in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order. The criminal cases against him were confined to specific private individuals and only related to law and order, which in the Bench’s view could be dealt with under ordinary criminal and other laws applicable if any.

Writing the order for the Bench, Justice Venugopal said that the distinction between areas of ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ was one of degree and the extent of reach of the act in issue on society. “If a violation is limited only to a few individuals directly involved, in contra-distinction to a wide spectrum of the public, it can raise only the problem of law and order. The length, intensity and magnitude of the terror wave unleashed by a certain eruption of disorder that helps to differentiate an act affecting ‘Public Order’ from that concerning law and order.”

The Bench said the offences alleged against the detenu did not adversely affect maintenance of public order. There was no existence of sufficient cause for preventive detention. The absence of consideration by the detaining authority with regard to the remotest possibility of the detenu coming out of bail in a crime registered by the K.K. Nagar police station concerning a graver offence, amounted to non-application of mind by the detaining authority, which as per law, vitiated the detention order.

Hence so many court strictures in both official and personal cases hence failed to correct Jayalalitha. Severe criticisms and agitations also could not correct her. Even successive electoral defeats and people’s mandates have had no effect on her. And hence, what to do with this shameless, unrepentant, incorrigible lady, has to be decided by the people of Tamil Nadu!