Disproportionate assets J. Jayalalitha vs Union Of India on 14 May, 1999

This article has been written by Jayalakshmi, Chennai Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College.

Abstract

The article which describes about the famous case  J. Jayalalitha vs Union Of India. The article had gone through the facts and tried to figure out the event time line and how the provisions were charged against the accused. This case had been known all over India and the judgment were delivered.This case is referred as Disproportionate assets case.

Equivalent citations: AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 1912

Bench: G.T. Nanavati, S.P. Kurdukar

Introduction

Jayalalithaa, a prominent political figure in Tamil Nadu, faced a tumultuous chapter in her career with the disproportionate assets case, casting a shadow on her legacy. This legal unfolded as allegations emerged that the former Chief Minister had accumulated wealth exceeding her known sources of income during her tenure.

Facts of the case

The origins of the case trace back to 1996 when complaints were lodged against Jayalalithaa, accusing her of financial irregularities. The crux of the matter lay in the allegations of amassing wealth disproportionate to her known sources of income during her first term as Chief Minister.

Investigation and Trials:

The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) and the Income Tax Department[1] undertook comprehensive investigations. In 1997, a charge sheet was filed, initiating a series of trials that unfolded over the years. The legal proceedings witnessed a roller coaster of events, from the 2000 conviction and subsequent resignation to the 2001 acquittal and reinstatement.

Convictions and Acquittals:   The year 2014 proved pivotal as Jayalalithaa faced a four-year imprisonment following a conviction by the Special Court. The Karnataka High Court, however, acquitted her in 2015, marking a significant twist in the narrative. The legal see saw continued until the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the DMK’s appeal in 2017, continuous legal trial tooks place till now.

The Accused

The persons who caught in this scam[2] were namely

1. J. Jayalalithaa,
2. V.K. Sasikala,
3. Ilavarasi and
4. V. N. Sudhakaran.

Provisions

The Charges[3] were charged against the

• In the disproportionate assets case, the charges primarily revolved around Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
• Section 13(1)(e): This section pertains to criminal misconduct by a public servant, specifically involving the possession of assets disproportionate to their known sources of income.
• Section 13(2):This part of the Act outlines the punishment for such offenses. A public servant found guilty of criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than one year but may extend to seven years, along with a fine.
• Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code played a crucial role in the case by addressing abetment. The legal proceedings centered on proving the elements of these charges to establish the alleged misconduct.

Indeed, in the trial of the  disproportionate assets case, several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were invoked.

Section 120(B) – Criminal Conspiracy:

This section deals with criminal conspiracy and holds individuals liable who are part of a conspiracy to commit an offense. In the context of the case, it could be relevant to establishing the involvement of individuals in a conspiracy related to the alleged accumulation of disproportionate assets.

Section 420 – Cheating and Dishonestly Inducing Delivery of Property:

This section pertains to cheating and dishonestly inducing the delivery of property. It becomes relevant in cases where there are allegations of acquiring assets through fraudulent means.

Section 467 – Forgery of a Document:

 This section deals with the forgery of a valuable security, will, or other documents. If there were allegations of forged documents related to assets, this section could be invoked to address such concerns during the legal proceedings.

Section 471 – Using as Genuine a Forged Document:

 If there were allegations that forged documents were being presented as genuine, Section 471 would be applicable. This becomes significant in cases where there are attempts to portray forged documents as legitimate, contributing to the overall charges of criminal misconduct, conspiracy, and fraudulent practices related to the accumulation of disproportionate assets.

Timeline

The Chronological[4] events were as follows

• In 1996, Subramanian Swamy, the Janata Party chief, filed a case against Jayalalithaa, alleging she amassed properties worth Rs 66.65 crore disproportionately during her 1991-1996 Chief Minister tenure.
• On Dec 7, 1996, Jayalalithaa was arrested, facing numerous allegations, particularly regarding disproportionate assets. Prosecution initiated in 1997 at the Additional Sessions Court in Chennai.
• And by June 4, 1997, she was charge-sheeted under Sections 120-B IPC, 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Despite legal challenges, the trial progressed.
• By August 2000, 250 prosecution witnesses had been examined, leaving only 10 more in the legal proceedings.
• In the May 2001 Assembly elections, the AIADMK secured an absolute majority, leading to Jayalalithaa becoming Chief Minister.
• However, her appointment faced challenges due to her October 2000 conviction in the TANSI case, leading the Supreme Court to nullify her appointment.
• On September 21, 2001, Jayalalithaa ceased to be Chief Minister. After her conviction was set aside, she was elected to the Assembly in a bypoll from Andipatti constituency.
• On February 21, 2002, and once again sworn in as Chief Minister. Notably, three public prosecutors and senior counsel resigned, and several prosecution witnesses altered their earlier depositions after the AIADMK returned to power.
• In 2003, DMK general secretary K Anbazhagan sought the Supreme Court’s intervention to transfer the trial to Karnataka, citing concerns about a fair trial in Tamil Nadu with Jayalalithaa as Chief Minister.
• On November 18, 2003, the Supreme Court granted the transfer, moving the case to Bengaluru.
• Following that, on February 19, 2005, the Karnataka Government appointed BV Acharya, a former Advocate General, as the Special Public Prosecutor to oversee the prosecution.
• In October/November 2011, Jayalalithaa appeared in the Special Court, responding to 1,339 questions.
• However, on August 12, 2012, Acharya expressed his inability to continue as the Special Public Prosecutor.
• The Karnataka Government accepted his resignation in January 2013 and discharged him from the case.
• On February 2, 2013, G Bhavani Singh was appointed as the new Special Public Prosecutor by the Karnataka Government.
• • Without citing a reason and without consulting the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, the Karnataka Government issued a notification on August 26, 2013, withdrawing the appointment of Bhavani Singh as Special Public Prosecutor.
• On September 30, 2013, the Supreme Court intervened, quashing the notification that withdrew Bhavani Singh’s appointment as Special Public Prosecutor.
• Progressing further, on December 12, 2013, the Special Court, in response to a plea by DMK General Secretary K Anbazhagan, ordered the physical production of valuables and other assets seized from Jayalalithaa in 1997, which were deposited in an RBI treasury in Chennai.
• Despite these developments, on February 28, 2014, the Special Court dismissed a plea by Bhavani Singh, the Special Public Prosecutor, seeking direction to produce the seized silver articles, with the judge stating it was filed with the purpose of delaying proceedings.
• Further, on March 14/15, 2014, the Special Court imposed a cost of one-day salary on Bhavani Singh for not resuming final arguments, citing ill-health. Bhavani Singh then moved the Karnataka High Court.
• On March 18, 2014, challenging the special court’s order imposing the cost.
• However, on March 21, 2014, the High Court rejected his petition, affirming the correctness of the special court’s decision to impose the cost.
• On August 28, 2014, the Special Court reserved judgment for September 20 and instructed all four accused, including Jayalalithaa, to appear before it on that date.
• However, on September 16, 2014, the Special Court deferred the pronouncement of its verdict by a week.
• Rescheduling it to September 27, 2014 and the verdict is Jayalalithaa was sentenced to four years in jail and fined Rs 100 crore in connection with the disproportionate assets case.
• On February 26, 2015, DMK General Secretary K Anbazhagan moved the Supreme Court seeking a stay of the case against Jayalalithaa, questioning the impartiality of Special Public Prosecutor Bhawani Singh.
• Following that, on March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court issued notices to Jayalalithaa and others in response to Anbazhagan’s plea seeking the removal of the prosecutor.
• On March 11, 2015, the Karnataka High Court withheld its decision regarding the appeal filed by Jayalalithaa and three others, including confidante Sasikala, in the case related to disproportionate assets.
• By April 1, 2015, Jayalalithaa defended Bhawani Singh’s continuation as the Special Public Prosecutor.
• However, on April 15, 2015, the Supreme Court gave a split verdict on the plea seeking the removal of Bhawani Singh in Jayalalithaa’s disproportionate assets case before the Karnataka The High Court referred the matter to a larger bench for further consideration.
• On April 27, 2015, the Supreme Court rejected Bhawani Singh’s appointment as “bad in law,” stating that the case did not warrant a fresh hearing of appeals. The court granted permission for Anbazhagan and Karnataka to submit written arguments in the High Court.
• On April 27, 2015, Anbazhagan filed a written submission with the Karnataka High Court, seeking confirmation of Jayalalithaa’s sentence.
• The following day, on April 28, 2015, BV Acharya was appointed as the new Special Public Prosecutor. He filed a written submission before the Karnataka High Court, praying for the dismissal of Jayalalithaa’s appeal.
• On May 8, 2015, the Karnataka High Court issued a notification stating that the Special Vacation Bench of Justice CR Kumaraswamy would pronounce the verdict on Jayalalithaa’s appeal on May 11, 2015.
• Ultimately, on May 11, 2015, the Karnataka High Court acquitted Jayalalithaa and three others.
• Moving forward, on February 6, 2017, the Supreme Court was likely to pronounce judgment in the case within a week. It’s worth noting that Jayalalithaa had passed away on December 5, 2016.
• On February 14, 2017, the Supreme Court convicted Sasikala and her two relatives, V N Sudhakaran and Elavarasi, by restoring the trial court verdict in to. The court directed them to serve the remaining jail term.
• Following the Supreme Court’s directive[5], trial took place in Karnataka on January 23,2024. A special court in Bengaluru has ruled that valuable jewelry, worth crores, seized during the disproportionate assets case against the late former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, J Jayalalithaa, should be returned to the Tamil Nadu government. Additionally, the court has ordered the Tamil Nadu government to pay ₹5 crore in compensation to Karnataka for the expenses incurred in conducting the disproportionate assets case.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the J. Jayalalithaa disproportionate[6] assets case stands as a landmark legal episode that traversed through the complexities of the Indian legal system. It not only exposed the challenges in prosecuting high-profile figures but also stimulated discussions about the broader issues of corruption, transparency, and the need for robust anti-corruption measures in the country. The case remains a significant milestone in India’s legal history, shaping the discourse around accountability and justice in the political realm.

[1] The Indian Express Newspaper

[2]  The Hindu

[3]  Business Standard

[4] The Indian Exprezs

[5] Economic Times

[6]  India. com