The Supreme Court on Tuesday sentenced former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa’s key aide Sasikala and her two family members to four years in prison in a 20-year-old disproportionate assets case, setting aside a Karnataka High Court judgment of May 11, 2015 that acquitted them. The HC had reversed a Bangalore trial court order that had found them guilty of conspiring with Jayalalithaa to amass illegal wealth worth Rs 66.65 crore.
By a separate but concurrent order, a two-judge Bench of the SC directed the accused to surrender “forthwith” before a Bengaluru court and undergo the remaining term of their four-year sentence and also deposit a fine of Rs 10 crore each. Sasikala, her nephew VN Sudhakaran and sister-in-law Elavarasi have already undergone a six-month prison sentence in this case.
This order virtually has closed the doors of Sasikala’s political ascendancy as she will stand disqualified to contest elections under the Representation of Peoples Act. She can’t contest polls for another six years after she completes her four-year sentence.
The ruling also means that no memorial can be built for late Jayalalithaa and her photographs must be taken off from all Government offices.
The HC had held that total assets of the accused and the companies in their names came to about Rs 37.59 crore as against her estimated income of Rs 34.76 crore. The HC had interpreted the disproportionate assets to be less than 10 per cent of the income, roughly about Rs 2.82 crore and hence acquitted them. Although proceedings against Jayalalithaa stood infructuous due to her death, the court directed the CBI to proceed as per the trial court’s order to recover the Rs 100 crore fine imposed on Amma by confiscating her bank accounts, properties and auction of gold and diamond jewellery.
Terming the HC’s quantification of disproportionate assets to be “visibly wrong” and “patently erroneous”, the Bench of Justices PC Ghose and Amitava Roy set aside the HC judgment and restored the order of the trial judge passed on September 27, 2014 “in toto”. It described the calculation of disproportionate assets worked out by the trial judge to be about Rs 66.65 crore as “meticulous, sensitive, vigilant and judicious” by all counts.
The court upheld conviction of the accused under charges of criminal conspiracy (IPC Section 120B) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and abetment (IPC Section 109). The apex court listed seven reasons for proving the “conspiracy” to nail the guilt of all the accused.
“All the accused congregated in the house of A1 (Jayalalithaa) neither for social living nor A1 allowed them free accommodation out of humanitarian concern. Rather the facts and circumstances proved in evidence undoubtedly point out that A2 (Sasikala) to A4 (J Ilavarasi) were accommodated in the house of A1 pursuant to the criminal conspiracy hatched by them to hold the assets of A1,” the SC said.
Sasikala moved into 36, Poes Garden residence of Jayalalithaa in 1988 while Sudhakaran shifted to this residence in 1992 and was acknowledged as Jayalalithaa’s foster son. Elavarasi too moved in during the early half of 1992 after her husband (Sasikala’s elder brother) died while working in one of the gardens owned by Amma.
The court observed that executing power of attorney in favour of Sasikala, the former Chief Minister allowed her to deal with her funds. Further evidence of this conspiracy was proved with the opening of ten firms on a single day, with no other business but buy properties. Neither did these companies file commercial tax returns nor did Jayalalithaa file her Income Tax returns from 1987-88 to 1992-93.
While none of these firms had a registered address, the court concluded that they virtually operated from the residence of Jayalalithaa. Moreover, the flow of funds from one account to the other proved existence of active conspiracy to launder the ill-gotten wealth of A1 for purchasing properties in the names of the firms, the Bench observed.
The Bench found that the income of the accused (A1 to A4 and the firms) was rightly calculated by the trial judge as Rs 9.91 crore and negated the approach of the HC to wrongly arrive at a figure of Rs 34.7 crore. The HC’s calculation of including gifts received by the CM worth Rs 1.26 crore came under criticism.
The SC said the HC failed to appreciate the evidence in the correct legal context since gifts cannot be a lawful source of income. Under the head of loans, also calculated towards income, the HC’s conclusion of Rs 24.17 crore was held “erroneous” as prosecution’s stand of the said amount being Rs 10.67 crore was held to be correct.
Taking all this in view, Justice Roy, in his separate order noted, “Both the corrupt and corrupter are indictable and answerable to society and the country as a whole. A self-serving conduct in defiance of such solemn undertaking (to dedicate oneself to welfare of society) in infringement of the community’s confidence reposed in them is therefore a betrayal of the promise of allegiance to the Constitution and a condemnable sacrilege.”