Reported By:
| Edited By: |Source: DNA |Updated: May 14, 2015, 02:06 PM IST
The acquittal of J Jayalalithaa and her close aides in the disproportionate assets case by a single-judge bench of the Karnataka high court has been met with euphoria by AIADMK cadres. It had overturned the trial court’s conviction of the former Chief Minister.
The high court has completely rejected the Bengaluru trial court’s findings. The lower court had based its verdict on the commercial transactions of the companies floated by Jayalalithaa and the co-accused, the huge recoveries of gold and silver, and the cash deposits to their bank accounts all amounted to disproportionate assets. The Congress-led Karnataka government has the discretion to appeal to the Supreme Court but that could be a political decision.
There are, however, some troubling questions which remain unanswered. One of them is the role of the prosecution at the appeal stage in the high court. On April 27, the then Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) in the case, Bhavani Singh — who was appointed through an order from the Tamil Nadu government despite the Karnataka government being the prosecuting agency — was removed by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court. The apex court had, however, rejected the contention that the proceedings conducted till date in the appeal need not be abandoned merely “because there was no proper assistance”. It had instead contended that “the filament of reasoning will naturally flow from a dispassionate viewing of the evidence”. The incoming prosecutor, BV Acharya, did not get an opportunity to make oral arguments and claimed that he had to submit written arguments within a day of taking charge: on April 28.
Earlier, a two-judge SC bench had a different view. One of the judges, Justice Madan Lokur, observed that Bhavani Singh’s continuation as prosecutor signalled the “failure of criminal justice delivery system” and the entire appeals proceedings stood vitiated. Justice Lokur had also said that it indicated how persons in power could “manipulate” the criminal justice delivery system.
The initial investigations were conducted and the case filed during the DMK’s term in office from 1996 to 2001. Jayalalitha rode back to power in May, 2001. In 2003, the SC stepped in and transferred the case to Karnataka after veteran DMK leader K Anbazhagan alleged that the then AIADMK government was scuttling the case. In 2012, Acharya, who handled the case from 2004, stepped down alleging harassment at the hands of “interested parties”.
The overturning of the trial court verdict sentencing Jayalalithaa to four-year imprisonment along with a whopping Rs100 crore penalty will also mean the immediate abatement of her disqualification from elected posts and it would revive her political career. This, in turn, could see her return to the Chief Minister’s post. Jayalalithaa may even call for fresh elections, to capitalise on the positive momentum that could build in AIADMK’s favour as a result of the acquittal order.
With arch-rival M Karunanidhi, now in his 90s, and having handed over the reins of the DMK organisation to MK Stalin, Jayalalithaa does not have to contend with a leader to match her stature and aura. The DMK is a house in disarray after the 2G spectrum scam indicted the party’s top leadership and a bout of factional in-fighting between Stalin and brother, MK Azhagiri. Jayalalithaa had swept the 2014 Lok Sabha elections and she would hope to win the assembly polls as well.
The implications of the case go beyond the political fortunes of Jayalalithaa and the AIADMK on the one hand, and that of Karunanidhi and the DMK on the other. They concern the issues of corruption in high places and how it needs to disentangled from the political tussle in order to punish the guilty.
