Autumn of the Matriarch

The unseating and disqualification of a sitting Chief minister, by an unprecedented ruling of a special court, for massive political corruption, will go down in history to demonstrate the resilience and strength of the Indian legal system. While this is a historic judgement which sends a message of zero tolerance to those in power, many political observers believe that it would be wrong to write off the matriarch as both her public support and her control over the party remains ‘absolute and untrammelled’. Also, it would be wrong to see the recent conditional bail by the Supreme Court as an acquittal because a difficult legal battle lies ahead for the Matriarch. A legal battle which would make or break her future career in electoral politics.


Charles Dickens once remarked “It is the best of times, it is the worst of times. It is the spring of hope and it is the winter of despair.” While Dickens may have wanted to show the best and worst times can lie in unison while referring to English society, it is tempting to use the same analogy on the political career of Ms Jayalalithaa. Her best time and her worst time seem to co-exist now. It is her ‘spring of hope’ with unprecedented public control over the party affairs at the same time it is ‘the winter of despair’ as her electoral career has had a judiicial roadblock with years of incarceration ahead.


Disproportionate Wealth Case – The judgement that shook Tamilnadu


Let us look at the facts of the case which has altered the political landscape of Tamilnadu like few others before.


The criminal case against Ms Jayalalithaa was set in motion when Dr Subramanian Swamy, then President of Janata Dal, lodged a complaint before the Special Judge under Prevention of Corruption Act alleging that the former had wealth disproportionate to her known sources of income.


Hundreds of adjournments and over eighteen years later, and after exhausting all possible legal remedies under the law, Judge Michael D’Cunha of Bangalore Special Court found J Jayalalithaa guilty of corruption. The prosecution’s case was that she had acquired the wealth of Rs 66 crore during the check period 1991 to 1996 whilst she was the chief minister in office drawing Rs 1 as her official salary.


The Judge ruled that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced her and others to four years of simple imprisonment under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and also imposed a fine of Rs100 crore on her. All her illegally acquired assets were ordered to be attached by the court and recovery if any will be adjusted against her fine payable to the state.


The 18-year legal battle with various attempts by the accused to delay the judicial process came to a definite halt after the unprecedented verdict of Judge Michael D’Cunha.


How were Immovable properties acquired?


According to the court judgement, “the firms floated by them, amassed properties and pecuniary resources to the tune of Rs 66,64,73,573 during the check period from 1.7.1991 to 30.4.1996”. We have provided below the modus operandi in which Jayalalithaa and others obtained large tracts of land totalling up to 3000 acres and various other movable and immovable properties using shell companies and firms acting as her front
A series of shell companies and dummy firms were created by Jayalalithaa and others. As per the court records 32 firms and companies were created to acquire immovable assets
The only purpose of these shell companies and firms was to acquire movable and immovable assets for the accused
All these shell companies and firms were owned and controlled by the accused and others
Some of these companies and firms, in turn, entered into partnerships with other firms in which the accused and others were again partners.
These new partnerships were again used to acquire more immovable Assets
Bank transactions revealed that the money used for acquiring these properties
came from the accounts of Jaya Publications in which Ms Jayalalithaa was a partner.
The transactions were directly traced with the accused as the companies had no other source of income of their own


The judge wrote in the judgemet “Scrutiny of various bank accounts maintained in the names of A-1 to A-4 and in the names of the above firms disclosed huge credits in cash had been frequently made into various accounts which were not commensurate with the income of the individuals and of the Firms concerned. There were frequent transfers of amounts between one account to the others to facilitate illegal acquisition of assets”. Further he also wrote “The above documents establish that though the company was started in 1990, it did not commence any profit making activities”


Further he showed that the companies and firms were a sham and shell. The judge wrote “there were no business activities at all in respect of many of the above Firms, and in respect of others, the activities were more in the nature of acquiring assets like lands, machinery, building etc., which were not production oriented. No income-tax returns were filed by these Firms. No assessment for commercial tax has also been done with respect to the business of these Firms”


Jayalalithaa’s failed defence


The defence of Jayalalithaa was that she had no knowledge that the other accused were acquiring the assets and she had no connection with them. To this the judge responded “It could not be believed that being the Chief Minister of a State, she was unaware of the large-scale activities carried on by persons living in her own house’


The judge also dismissed the defence that the court needs to make a distinction between company and a private person as company is a separate person under law. To this the judge responded, “illegally amassed wealth, running to nearly 3000 acres of land, is parked in these shell companies obviously for the reason that this arrangement provides convenient leeway to enjoy and deal with the properties registered in the name of the companies and even dispose them of merely by passing a resolution.”


A last attempt at defence was also made by stating that the remittances received were from the sale of the newspaper and collections under Jaya Publications by name Dr Namadhu MGR. This was also dismissed by the judge as no evidence was provided to the court and the bank accounts were opened after the corruption cases were registered against the accused. This the court said was “an after thought”.


Efforts were also abound to fabricate documents to prove receipts of income to account for various assets that were purchased. The Judge observed “under mysterious circumstances as the auditors of A-1 and A-2 themselves had stated before the Income Tax authorities that the documents pertaining to the receipt of deposits by Namadhu MGR were lost in transit and therefore could not be produced, but surprisingly, during the examination of the defence witnesses, the accused have got summoned these documents from Income Tax Department which speaks in volume about the manner in which the accused have fabricated evidence in support of their false defence”


All in all the hard work of the vigilance department and meticulous efforts by the investigating agency and hard facts and pieces of evidence presented before the court outwitted some of the most arcane legal arguments put forth by the best legal minds in the land. Investigator Mr Nallamma Naidu conducted a thorough and scientific investigation. He meticulously collected the chalans and receipts from banks into which the accused and others had transferred money from various sources, including the business enterprises or shell companies in which they were partners.


The Supreme court bench had earlier ruled “Be you ever so high, the law is above you,” The judgement of Judge Cunha handing down a fine of Rs 100 crores and a 4 year prison sentence demonstrated the veracity and power contained in the judgement of the Supreme Court.


Turning Point in the Trial


The turning point in the case came when the Supreme Court transferred it from a Special Court in Chennai to a Special Court in Bangalore on November 18, 2003. Anbazhagan of DMK had filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking transfer of case out of the state. He stated in his petition that the police officers, who were under the control of the state government, could not be expected to prosecute the cases diligently against Jayalalithaa, who was the Chief Minister of the state. In the petition he said that after the AIADMK returned to power in May 2001, a new prosecutor was appointed in the case and most of the prosecution witnesses were recalled for cross-examinations and they turned hostile. Anbazhagan alleged that the public prosecutor did not object to the witnesses being recalled. Anbazhagan further alleged that the public prosecutor did not make any effort to declare them hostile. Therefore in substance it was impossible to convict the accused if the case was tried in the state. Allowing the petition, the Supreme Court noted:“The petitioner has made out a case that the public confidence in the fairness of the trial is being seriously undermined…. There is a strong indication that the process of justice is being subverted”. Once the trial was transferred out of Chennai to Special Court in Bangalore, the prosecuting agency was unstoppable in its path to conviction


Role played by DMK in the case


The role played by the DMK is equally remarkable. DMK pursued the case with zeal and fervour. Karunanidhi even wrote an eight-page series in the DMK organ, Murasoli, tracing the history of the case, including its vicissitudes. The DMK government had instructed the prosecutors to ensure that the investigating agency never overestimated the value of properties bought by Jayalalithaa and the other accused so that no mala fides could be attributed to the prosecution. This made the case strong.


Jayalalithaa is disqualified from contesting for 10 years


Under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, anyone who is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment under the Prevention of Corruption Act stands disqualified for six years from the date of his conviction along with the period of sentence of imprisonment. Therefore a total of 10 years has to pass before Jayalalithaa can stand for election. Accordingly, due to her conviction, Jayalalithaa now also stands disqualified as a member of the Tamil Nadu Assembly and therefore ceased to be the Chief Minister from the day on which her conviction was confirmed by the Special Court.


The assets of Jayalalithaa and others


Among the assets the accused acquired, the charge sheet said, were 1. palatial farmhouses and bungalows in and around Chennai, Neelangarai, Sirudavur and Paiyanoor; 2.agricultural land at Utthukottai and Tirunelveli; 3. Kodanadu Tea Estate in the Nilgiris; 4. industrial sheds in Chennai; 5. cash in bank accounts; 6. investments in financial firms; 7. diamond and gold jewellery; 8. a cache of wrist watches; 9. farmhouses in Hyderabad; 10. hundreds of saris and footwear. These were in Jayalalithaa’s name or in the names of the other accused or firms in which Jayalalithaa was a partner.


Tamilnadu – A Theatre of Absurd


On the day the conviction was announced, violence broke out across the state. AIADMK cadres set fire to some buses, stoned the windscreens of others, and forced shopkeepers to close their shops. Government buses stopped running and public and private transportation system came to a complete halt. Next the State of Tamilnadu witnessed a spectre of sycophancy and servitude, perhaps never before witnessed in its history. There were reports that over 100 people had committed suicide and others prayed to god and performed poojas that their mother should return back safe. Even the titular appointee Mr Panneerselvam took oath displaying deep loyalty with tears in his eyes and a sense of loss.


Rejection of bail by Karnataka High Court and Tears of Despair


The legal team manned by India’s top lawyer Ram Jethmalani appeared before the Karnataka High Court to seek bail for the accused. When the public prosecutor stated that he had no objection in granting bail to Jayalalithaa, there was celebration in the Air. Many news channels reported that Jayalalithaa was granted bail by the Karnataka High Court. However, the absurdity was revealed when the sudden celebration stopped. Someone read the bail order and proclaimed that Bail was denied. Here it is surprising to see how the public prosecutor representing the state stated that he had no objection in the Bail. Clearly, the forces in the background were working overtime. The Karnataka High Court by rejecting the bail again sent a strong message that corruption cases must be considered akin to Human Rights violation


Subsequent Conditional Bail by the Supreme Court on Medical Grounds


It is important that the grant of conditional bail by the Supreme Court on medical grounds and stay of sentencing for 2 months must not be seen as an exoneration or acquittal of Ms Jayalalithaa. Perhaps, there are two reasons why bails was generously considered in her case. One, the courts historically have shown lenience on granting bail to women and those who could demonstrate medical reasons for bail. Two, the bail is also a right of the accused under the constitution which has to be granted to the accused.


The Real question here is whether the Matriarch could influence witlessness and the proceedings of the case and change the case to her favour when it goes for an appeal. The possibility for this seems to be remote as Judge Cunha has not only given a strong judgement which stands on solid legal foundations but he has also taken efforts to meticulously write all evidences presented against her in the judgement itself. This is large part freezes the facts of the case and does not provide opportunity to tamper with evidence and appellate courts do not normally entertain new facts or new evidences to be brought before it and change of track by old witnesses which supported prosecution’s case. Also the jurisdiction of the case still lies in Bangalore and not in Chennai which means her party cadres and loyalists would have little control over the affairs of the case.


Lastly, the Supreme Court has also ruled that the case must be fast tracked and completed within three months and appeal papers has to be submitted in two months’ time by December 2014. Legal experts believe that it is unlikely that it would be achieved and the likely possibility is that an extension for completion may be applied in her case by the fast track court to the Supreme Court.


It must be noted that it is in Matriarch’s interest to get a favourable verdict and win the legal battle quickly so that she can stand for state assembly election of 2016 which is not very far. As of date the taint of conviction is still there which disqualifies her from contesting in the MLA/ MP election in the state.


The Future of ADMK and Jayalalithaa


Jayalalithaa’s journey has been a long one. She transformed herself from a starry eyed starlet of the tinsel town who set the silver screen ablaze with her oomph, charm and charisma to a consummate politician who ruled with unflinching streak of ruthlessness and a politician known for strategic political manoeuvres. She was the ‘the wronged women’ who stormed the corridors of power to acquire the political heirship of MGR landing finally a Convict No 7402 at Jail for getting on the wrong side of the law. Her career has seen such ups and downs which very few can ever claim parallel with. From being the first to act with skirt and sleeveless and shorts on the conservative Tamil cinema screens to perhaps the first to demolish the bastion of Dravidian Caste politics when she became the upper caste leader of a party formed to fight upper castes, in a state where her caste is minority and considered to be an oppressive one.


However, given her iron grip over the party and no second in line command it is believed that ADMK could face slow implosion from within if no leader takes charge in her absence. It is also unlikely that she would be able to wield power continuously for 10 years micromanaging the party from Jail. Further, her growing age and slow decline over the party’s affairs would lead to an untimely end to a person who in the height of her glory acquired public following no less than her prodigious mentor MGR himself.


Now if ADMK cadres do not throw up another leader, their decline and fall is imminent and the gainers would be the other Dravidian party despite their corrupt track record and deeply entrenched dynastic politics. While some believe that it is unlikely that BJP would be able to make headway in a state with which it has little connect others disagree and are banking on Modi Wave.


Anyway it is time for her to groom a core team and a leader who will look at affairs of her party in her absence. If she fails in this, the decline of ADMK is a foregone conclusion. Its time to act in party’s interest to stem its decline.


The story of the rise and fall of the mighty matriarch from dizzying heights of success is remarkable. However, it would be wrong to write any epitaph on Ms Jayalalithaa because her public support seems to rival even MGR. Again, if the political history is anything to go by, many leaders have risen from the ashes like the mythical phoenix.


Indian democracy never ceases to surprise. Perhaps it never will.