Jayalalithaa’s case was abated, not an exoneration: SC

Supreme Court clarifies that its 2017 order on Jayalalithaa's DA case does not imply her acquittal; her properties will remain attached for auction.

Eight years after the Supreme Court stopped criminal proceedings against former Tamil Nadu chief minister J Jayalalithaa in a disproportionate assets (DA) case after her death, a top court bench on Friday clarified that its 2017 decision did not mean it had signed off on her acquittal by the high court.

J Jayalalithaa

The court dismissed a plea by her legal heir seeking the return of attached properties, reinforcing that abatement (the technical term for not considering a legal question, in this case because of Jayalalithaa’s death) does not equate exoneration.

The bench headed by justice BV Nagarathna clarified on Friday that the 2017 judgment was a legal formality since the court was unable to proceed further in the criminal case due to Jayalalithaa’s demise.

“Abatement means that the question as to whether the high court was right in acquitting the accused is not being considered further. It is not an imprimatur on her acquittal,” stated the bench, also comprising justice Satish Chandra Sharma.

The development came eight years after the Supreme Court closed proceedings against Jayalalithaa following her death in December 2016.

The order came on a petition filed by J Deepa , Jayalalithaa’s niece and one of her legal heirs, who challenged a January 13 order of the Karnataka high court refusing release of the confiscated property currently with the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) of the Tamil Nadu government. The department had obtained an order from the special court hearing the matter in Karnataka on January 29 to proceed with the auction of the property belonging to the former CM and leader of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK).

Dismissing the appeal, the bench said, “Having regard to the observations in our judgment dated February 14, 2017, to the effect that as regards Accused 1 (Jayalalithaa), the proceedings stood abated as she had died, it would imply that further consideration of the case with regard to correctness of the judgment acquitting A-1 (Jayalalithaa) would not be taken further. However, abatement would not imply that acquittal has attained finality.”

Jayalalithaa was convicted by a trial court in Karnataka in the DA case in September 2014 and sentenced to undergo four years imprisonment. On her appeal, the Karnataka high court set aside the decision and acquitted her in May 2015. This order was appealed in the Supreme Court, which led to the 2017 order. Jayalalithaa died on December 5, 2016.

Deepa sought release of the gold, silver and other property attached by the DVAC as she claimed that following the “abatement” order the property did not suffer from the taint of corruption. The HC refused to accept this plea while citing portions from the top court’s 2017 judgment which justified the confiscation of the properties.

The top court had said then, “We set aside the judgment and order of the high court and affirm and restore the judgment of the trial court in toto against A2 to A4. However, though in the process of scrutiny of the facts and the law involved and the inextricable nexus of A1 with A2 to A4, reference to her role as well as the evidence pertaining to her had been made, she having expired meanwhile, the appeals, so far as those relate to her stand abated.” A1 refers to Jayalalithaa. A2 to Sasikala, who is a close aide and friend of Jayalalithaa. A3 to VN Sudhakaran, the son of Sasikala’s elder sister and was proclaimed as Jayalalithaa’s foster son, and A4 J Elavarasi, the wife of Sasikala’s elder brother.

While examining the evidence against Jayalalithaa and other accused, including her aide Sasikala, the 2017 judgment said, “We have analyzed the evidence adduced by the parties and we come to the conclusion that A1 to A4 have entered into a conspiracy and in furtherance of the same, A1 who was a public servant at the relevant time had come into possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of her income during the check period and had got the same dispersed in the names of A2 to A4 and the firms and companies involved to hold these on her behalf with a masked front. Furthermore, the charge of abetment laid against A2 to A4 in the commission of the offence by A1 also stands proved.”

Advocate M Sathya Kumar who argued the petition for Deepa informed the court that the DVAC has already approached the Karnataka special court for auctioning the confiscated property of the former CM. He pointed out that nearly 740 gms of gold and 700 kilograms of silver seized by DVAC was handed to the former CM by her mother and came into her possession while she was a popular actor in Tamil cinema, prior to her entry into politics.

The bench said, “We can then clear the way for them (DVAC) to go ahead (with the auction),” as it refused to interfere with the HC order. It refused to comment with regard to the pre-check period property as the same was dealt with by the high court in allowing the former CM’s legal heirs to proceed as per law in raising such a claim.

Jayalalithaa had multiple tenures as chief minister of Tamil Nadu. The corruption case against her pertained to the period when she was CM from June 24, 1991 till May 13, 1996.