CHENNAI: Any hope for further postponement faded on Friday when the Supreme Court refused to entertain a lawyer’s plea seeking a direction to the trial court trying chief minister J Jayalalithaa’s disproportionate assets case to defer its verdict, given the possibility of a law and order crisis in the event of the judgment going against her.
The verdict would mark the culmination of an 18-year-long trial, which began soon after Jayalalithaa stepped down as CM in 1996. She is charged with accumulating 66.65 crore of wealth disproportionate to known sources of income during her first term as CM between 1991 and 1996. Carried out in two states under the SC’s Supreme Court’s supervision, the trial it has been presided over by a series of six judges so far.
The judgment, to be delivered by special judge John Michael D’Cunha at a makeshift court in the Parappana Agrahara prison complex in Bangalore, will be keenly watched as it could influence the career of one of India’s most charismatic politicians. Jayalalithaa is expected to fly out to Bangalore early on Saturday morning amid massive security arrangements in both states.
A heavy conviction could result in automatic disqualification in keeping with the SC’s Supreme Court’s ruling last November, striking down Section 8(4) of Representation of the People Act which protected sitting legislators from disqualification (see graphic).
If Jayalalithaa emerges unscathed, it would be seen as a vindication of her political stand and fortitude in the face of a vindictive opposition. Tamil Nadu is equally poised for a period of political calm or uncertainty.
The 18-year-old ‘assets case’ entered a decisive phase in November 2003 after the SC transferred the trial from a special court in Tamil Nadu to Karnataka. Since then it has seen six special judges, two special public prosecutors and three defence counsel for Jayalalithaa alone.
There were two segments to the DA cases against Jayalalithaa and her associates. While the first part involved unaccounted assets in India worth Rs 66.65 crore, the second part involved three associates who had been charged with acquiring two hotels — Slaley Hall and Hopscroft Holt — in London, together worth Rs 248 crore, using sleaze money.
READ ALSO: Why case dragged on for 18 years?
Though the London case was a bigger liability for the accused, and difficult to defend, the prosecution was handicapped by logistics. As frankly conceded by the then special public prosecutor B V Acharya, it would have been impossible for the prosecuting agency to travel all the way to England and collect actionable evidence.
The way out, in the prosecution’s opinion, was to dump the ‘London Hotels case’ and focus on the Rs 66.65-crore component which had tangible evidence as landed property, gold, silver, bank deposits and cash. Citing ‘paucity of evidence’ against Jayalalithaa, prosecutor Acharya thus ruled out her involvement in the hotel’s acquisition and sought to drop the case. The apex court finally allowed him to withdraw the case in April 2009, paving way for the resumption of trial in the special court in Bangalore.
FROM : Times Now
