Guilty or not, Jayalalithaa is possibly the best option for Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu was apparently ringing with joy on the evening of October 17, when it was made known that the Supreme Court had granted former Chief Minister Ms. Jayalalithaa conditional bail. The fact is, I had noticed a massive leaning by most, if not all of the intelligentsia towards granting Jayalalithaa bail, and I would like to take a moment to discuss this.

The consensus among most of Tamil Nadu’s seniors, even those who are quite clearly anti-AIADMK, was that bail should be given as she is a lady in poor health who has done the state much good. Although a competent and reform-oriented chief minister, the Karnataka High Court did raise a valid point when they portrayed the crimes for which she was convicted, as violations of human rights, and made it clear that her own case would thus have to be treated as such. Do we ignore that aspect?

That Fali Nariman, possibly the greatest trial lawyer (and one of my personal idols) alive today represented her, did the lady no harm. But as to the merits of his arguments, he chose to use that statement as indication of the High Court’s application of it as indicative of the relevant case (a 2012 judgement) being used as a precedent. Fortunately, the Supreme Court did not seriously consider that argument, but they have used this bail-plea to ensure that the nation does finally get a speedy trial. For if there has been an area in which the Indian machinery of justice has failed, it has been in the expedience. The use of obvious and deliberate delaying tactics is winked at, due to the massive caseload every single court in the nation is weighed down by, and a delay in one case means justice for others just a little bit sooner.

In an unprecedented move, bail has been granted upon the condition that no delaying tactics are employed, and that the “paperbook”—the legal folder containing an abstract of all the facts and pleadings necessary to the full understanding of a case—be ready by December 18 and the appeal in the Karnataka High Court be completed by February 18.

Dr Subramanian Swamy, the original complainant in the disproportionate assets case that Jayalalithaa stands convicted for, was allowed to address the court. As an outstanding lawyer and brilliant speaker himself, Swamy spoke eloquently of the “rampant lawlessness” and “sporadic violence” that has plagued Tamil Nadu since the conviction. He further raised valid points of the state suffering because the entire Cabinet of the state government had stationed themselves in Karnataka in order to protest her conviction, when they ought to have been attending to their duties towards the people of Tamil Nadu, in Tamil Nadu. 

However, what he obviously intended as prejudicial statements to ensure her being kept in prison pending the appeal, seem to have backfired. Some may opine that Tamil Nadu needs Jayalalithaa out of jail in order to function properly again, which is what the Supreme Court seems to have also inferred.

More surprisingly, they may be absolutely correct to believe so!

As tragic as it is to admit, the simple truth is that the AIADMK without Jayalalithaa is probably a less viable option than anarchy. The swearing-in ceremony of O. Paneerselvam as Chief Minister after Jayalalithaa was convicted was a shocking display of his utter disregard for the people of Tamil Nadu that he was swearing to protect. To put it in a nutshell, who would want to see their protector sobbing through a ceremony meant to assure them that all would proceed as it should?

Tamil Nadu does need Jayalalithaa, for there is absolutely nobody else. Does this give the AIADMK cadre the right to indulge in acts of utter barbarism that the state has seen ever since Jaya’s conviction? Emphatically, no! That the Supreme Court held that Jaya had nothing to do with all of it is correct, and that they obtained an assurance that instructions would be publically issued by Jaya asking all AIADMK supporters in the state to maintain strict “political morality” was also correct.

While it is true that pending appeal, her conviction still stands, and she will not be able to take actual office as the chief minister, and it is also true that she is not keeping good health at present and would require some medical attention and rest, it is important to note that she has been successful in running the state from her residence in the past, as she did from September 2001 to March 2002.

Tamil Nadu definitely needs her at the helm as we plough forward, which brings one to a very worrying question. What happens next? The case is only on appeal, which means the High Court may well find that any new evidence brought before it is unsatisfactory. Also, they are not allowed to again weigh any of the previous evidence admitted in the original trial, unless motions are won by the defence as to the need to do so. Nariman is an absolute genius at constitutional law, so it must be stressed that if anybody could, he will. But that still doesn’t guarantee her victory.

If the verdict goes against Jaya, it might be the right verdict under the Law, but would it be the right verdict for Tamil Nadu? The Jury system of Law often faces the threat of jury nullification, which is when a jury acquits a defendant even though it knows or believes the defendant to be guilty of the charges. Strictly speaking, it is illegal and unconstitutional in most legal systems around the world, but it has happened in the past. This has almost never happened in territories operated only by judges, but Nariman might well be inclined to argue for “judicial nullification,” as very simply, if the AIADMK doesn’t have Jayalalithaa in charge, the only other option would be President’s Rule until the 2016 elections.

I’m not for one moment arguing for it, but Nariman well might use Paul Newman’s immortal words from The Verdict,

We think of ourselves as victims... and we become victims. We become—we become weak. We doubt ourselves, we doubt our beliefs. We doubt our institutions, and we doubt the law. But today you are the law. You ARE the law! Not some book, not the lawyers, not a marble statue, or the trappings of the court. 

The Law is supreme, and those that break it should most definitely pay for their trespasses, but without Jayalalithaa, Tamil Nadu will be at the mercy of the most incompetent leaders in existence. I for one do not think President’s Rule would be much better, as all this would mean is that the bureaucracy gets to take us for a ride even more than they normally do. So then, what will happen to us, the people of Tamil Nadu?

The opinions expressed in this article are the author's own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of dna.