Jaya and Salman: An acquittal and a suspension

The Indian judiciary has sprung many surprises in independent India. The two recent ones — the suspension of the sentence awarded to matinee star Salman Khan in a case of rash and negligent driving and the acquittal of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa of corruption charges — however take the cake for the sensation caused, particularly against huge conjectures that had prevailed before the two judicial orders were pronounced. In both cases, the trial court had found the accused guilty. The issues, thereafter, came up to the two high courts. 

The Bombay high court, which heard the petition for a suspension of the trial court order against Salman Khan, had a less difficult task on hand. If you ignore the pressures said to have emanated from Bollywood’s solid support to the superstar, there was no popular frenzy that had to be taken into account by the Mumbai HC in passing whatever order it wanted. This was a case involving an individual who could well become a back number once his acting days were over. This is why the Salman Khan case is of very limited and local importance. The Jaya case is absolutely of a different order. Here, the Karnataka HC, which had to dispose of Jayalalithaa’s appeal, faced a more complicated situation, including the one resulting from a huge public opinion in favour of the four accused. While there were no political overtones in the former, in the Jaya case, her bitter opponent, the DMK, was the principal driver behind the prosecution ever since the case was registered in 1996, when it was the ruling party. Naturally, the conflict between the two Dravidian parties lent a bitter edge to the case, creating acrimony and confusion that successfully obfuscated the law on the subject. A simple case of disproportionate assets held by a public servant quickly acquired the complexion of a political battle. 

While the AIADMK would see Jaya’s acquittal as a vindication of the innocence of its unbelievably popular leader – a popularity that probably exceeded that of party founder MG Ramachandran — the DMK could go to the extent of citing the role of non-judicial factors which could have influenced the ruling. All in the realms of speculation!

A mature democracy as ours will have to abide by judicial decisions, however unpalatable and questionable they look to individuals. This is fundamental to criminal justice. Or else we have to settle for a dictatorship that recognises no law. In public debate, you may assail a judgement for its incorrectness. But it would be sacrilege to go beyond and question the motive of the judge pronouncing an order. It is in this context that the constitutionality of the Judicial Appointments Commission, now before the apex court, assumes the greatest importance. We may not want brilliant judges. But we definitely want honest judges, especially at lower levels.

The Jaya case has implications for investigating agencies such as the CBI and vigilance bureaus in the states. The judgment is likely to be quoted chapter and verse by defence lawyers across the country. One thing is clear. The Jaya ruling has raised the bar for agencies trying to prove that a public servant has acquired assets disproportionate to his/her known sources of income. The belief — though not strictly tenable under law — held hitherto that the burden shifts almost wholly to the accused in such cases has received an appreciable reverse. My view is that anti-corruption agencies will hereafter have to work harder if they want to take a case to court.

This is unfortunate in the current scenario where public servants have become extremely ingenious and have acquired an expertise in covering up their misdeeds. What this means for India’s image abroad is better left unsaid!

The writer is a former CBI Director