#danEdit: Salvaging justice

Karnataka’s decision to appeal against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa’s acquittal in a disproportionate assets case reaffirms the faith that the Supreme Court(SC) vested in it by making the state the sole prosecuting agency after transferring the case out of TN. For a while, the Karnataka government had appeared indecisive over the next step to be pursued after a single-judge bench of the Karnataka high court had acquitted Jayalalithaa. The appeal is also an opportunity for the Karnataka government to redeem its reputation after a rather dubious role in the conduct of the high court proceedings. It had allowed the Tamil Nadu government to appoint a special prosecutor who allegedly soft-pedalled the prosecution’s contentions against Jayalalithaa in the high court. This prompted one Supreme Court judge to remark that the entire high court proceedings stood vitiated and that it signalled how persons in power could “manipulate” the criminal justice delivery system. However, BV Acharya, the prosecutor appointed by Karnataka after the SC intervened, could not make oral arguments and was granted just one day to submit written arguments, following which Justice CR Kumaraswamy reserved his judgment.

Of course, the AIADMK has always held that it was a case of political vendetta pursued by the DMK government between 1996 and 2001. The AIADMK will most certainly attribute political motives to the Siddaramaiah-led Congress government’s decision as the two parties are not in an alliance, either at the state or central levels. Within a day of the high court judgment becoming public, lawyers and opposition politicians were quick to spot the arithmetical errors and the arguably wrong assumptions in Justice Kumaraswamy’s judgment. Nevertheless, an unfazed Jayalalithaa has reclaimed the CM’s chair and is campaigning for the June 27 bypolls. The arithmetical errors —Kumaraswamy apparently totalled ten loans to arrive at a figure of almost Rs24.17 crore when it ought to have been Rs10.67 crore — prominently figure in the appeal now filed by Karnataka. The petition further contends that the disproportionate assets were not to the tune of 8.12 per cent of Jayalalithaa’s income, but was 76.7 per cent as a result of this error. Further, the appeal is also correct in pointing out that the SC judgment in the Agnihotri case — allowing for a 10 per cent deviation in reported and disproportionate income—was not the correct precedent in Jaya’s case. Agnihotri’s was a case where the excess assets were to the tune of just Rs11,350 while in Jaya’s case, the prosecution argument is that the disproportionate income runs into crores. Moreover, Jayalalithaa was also the serving Chief  Minister of Tamil Nadu when she amassed these assets, raising concerns about official corruption.

But it appears that Jayalalithaa is in no danger of being disqualified again before the bye-elections, as Karnataka has not sought an urgent hearing in the SC to press for an interim stay order on the high court judgment.

Recently, while arguing on the constitutionality of the National Judicial Appointments Commission, senior advocate Dushyant Dave had criticised the different yardsticks that apply to politicians and filmstars in the courts of law. Both Lalu Prasad Yadav and Jayalalithaa were granted bail and their sentences suspended by the Supreme Court pending the disposal of their appeals. Jaya’s case is particularly interesting because it points to a system than can move fast when it suits the interests of VIPs. Jaya’s conviction and imprisonment of four years, in September 2014, came after a trial lasting over a decade. However, her appeal was disposed of swiftly— in seven months —and in a questionable manner by the high court. It is now incumbent upon the Supreme Court to quickly dispose of the appeal and conclusively settle the doubts raised in the public mind about the high court judgment.