It took a torturous 20 years to send the corrupt to jail in the Jayalalithaa disproportionate assets case. But with the long arm of the law eventually catching up with the accused, public faith has been restored

Recently, the Supreme Court of India struck a blow for probity in public life when it packed off VK Sasikala and two others to jail for being abettors and conspirators in acts of corruption by J Jayalalithaa when the latter was Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu between 1991 and 96. Although the case dragged on for close to two decades and court procedures were dreadfully slow, those who long for a justice system that will make the rich and powerful accountable, will hail this verdict as a landmark judgement.

The Jayalalithaa-Sasikala case is a pointer to how a corrupt politician begins to amass wealth and then, if caught, uses political clout and every trick in a lawyer’s bag to stymie the legal process and, if possible, render the justice system defunct. It also tells us a lot about the mentality of some political leaders, who think and behave as if they are above the law. This story of corruption began when Jayalalithaa became the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu in 1991. After she demitted office, Subramanian Swamy filed a complaint in June that year before a special judge in Chennai, accusing Jayalalithaa of amassing wealth disproportionate to her sources of income. The prosecution’s case against Jayalalithaa and the other accused was as follows:

In 1987, the total value of assets possessed by Jayalalithaa was Rs 7.5 lakh. In addition she claimed she had one lakh rupees in her bank accounts and some jewellery. The second accused in the case, Sasikala, was an occasional visitor to Jayalalithaa’s house at Number 36, Poes Garden, in Chennai, and later began living with Jayalalithaa at this residence since 1988. Jayalalithaa described her publicly as a “friend-cum-sister”. The third accused —VN Sudhakaran — was Sasikala’s sister’s son (Akkana Maga) and Jayalalithaa proclaimed him as her “foster son”. He too lived with Jayalalithaa. The fourth accused, J Elavarasi, was the wife of Sasikala’s deceased brother. After her husband’s death, she too moved into Jayalalithaa’s Poes Garden residence.

This issue is an excellent case study on how a corrupt politician goes about amassing wealth. Jayalalithaa and the other three accused lived under one roof and went about stashing away ill-gotten cash into a slew of companies floated by them. The brazenness of this operation can be seen from the fact that dozens of companies and bank accounts were opened and crores of rupees were credited to these bank accounts in cash. These funds were in turn used to buy land and buildings. The accused went about their business as if there was no anti-corruption law in the country and as if there was no such thing as an income tax law.

We now know that Jayalalithaa did not care to file her income tax returns from assessment years 1987-88 to November 1992. During this period, she was a member of the Rajya Sabha, leader of the Opposition in Tamil Nadu and Chief Minister — and no questions were asked. She filed her return only when the issue was raised in Parliament. This is yet another example of two sets of laws operating in the country — one for honest law-abiding citizens and another for the politically powerful.

Investigators found that after July 1991, there was a sudden spurt in the acquisition of assets and Jayalalithaa and Sasikala floated a staggering 32 companies in the names of Sasikala, Sudhakaran and Elavarasi. Six of these companies were registered on a single day, January 25, 1994. Ten companies were registered on February 15, 1995, and all their bank accounts were opened on a single day — March 23, 1995. After Jayalalithaa became the Chief Minister, 50 new bank accounts were opened and there was ‘laundering of gigantic unaccounted cash’. 

Huge credits of cash were frequently made into these accounts. Pursuant to this criminal conspiracy, they amassed wealth to the tune of Rs 66.65 crore, which was grossly disproportionate to their known sources of income. The numerous inter-account transfers corroborated massive unaccounted cash deposits being made and properties were bought in ‘shady and murky deals’.

Karnataka got willy-nilly drawn into this affair when a demand was made for the transfer of this case outside Tamil Nadu. Two individuals from the State — Justice John Micheal D’Cunha, the Special Judge who convicted Jayalalithaa and her co-accused, and BV Acharya, the Special Public Prosecutor who built an iron-clad case against the accused — merit special mention. They have done the justice system and the State they hail from, proud by the way they handled their responsibilities in very trying circumstances. On Justice D’Cunha, former Additional Solicitor-General, KN Bhat has said, “Several heroes have emerged from the case. The first was the Special Judge of Karnataka, John Michael D’Cunha. If money could purchase a judgement, the customers in this case were a capable lot but the judge was not available for sale. He is now an honourable justice of the High Court of Karnataka.”

He pays a similar tribute to Acharya. Friends of Acharya speak of the constant threats that he and members of his family had to face while the trial was one. Incidentally, Acharya returned to the case as senior counsel on behalf of the State of Karnataka, when the appeal was heard by the Supreme Court.  

Two things stand out in the Supreme Court verdict: The encomiums that the court has paid to Justice D’Cunha and its disappointment with the Karnataka High Court order acquitting all the four accused. The court had high praise for Justice D’Cunha when it said that the Special Judge had been “meticulous, sensitive, vigilant and judicious” while valuing assets and the expenses. However, it said the verdict of the Karnataka High Court “suffers from manifest errors on the face of the record, both on facts and in law and is liable to be set aside”. It said the percentage of disproportionate assets computed by the High Court “is based on completely wrong reading of the evidence on record, compounded by incorrect arithmetical calculations”.

It is true that it took a torturous 20 years to send the corrupt to jail, but with the long arm of the law eventually catching up with the accused, one can say that this case will go a long way in restoring public faith in the country’s judicial system.

(The writer is Chairman, Prasar Bharati. Views expressed here are personal)