JOIN USConvict No 7402 of Bangalore Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara, might soon be released on bail and head back to Poes Garden in Chennai. However, J Jayalalitha is unlikely to resume the chief minister’s chair at Fort St George for quite some time to come.
Her conviction under Sec 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, has all the elements of a morality play. A popular mother figure, an old accusation from an impetuous past, a judgment that could be delayed no longer made for a story scripted to the highest standards of cinematic tradition.
The moral of the story, however, seems to be that India of 2014 has changed. It is no longer ready to be complicit in corruption at the constitutional level. Earlier, when former chief ministers would be prosecuted or subjected to Commissions of Inquiry, they would claim vendetta, their lawyers would delay proceedings beyond the next election and if the accused was re-elected, prosecutions would quietly be dropped.
That script did not play out in this case, which has seen more twists and turns than any potboiler. In 1995, when presiding over the monster wedding of her onetime foster son, (now her co-accused) Sudhakaran, she and her other co-accused Sasikala, would have hardly envisioned the sequence of events that followed.
Public revulsion at unaccountable ostentation turned into electoral fury in 1996. She lost power and was arrested in several corruption cases including one alleging assets disproportionate to her known sources of income. The chargesheet mentioned possession of 12,000 silk sarees, 28 kilos of gold, kilos of silver and acres of land owned by companies controlled by the accused. She seemed to be doomed to political oblivion.
She fought back and vigorously contested all her cases in court. Her political fortunes turned when in 2001, she appeared contrite, unadorned and alone before the electorate. She led her party to victory despite her pending corruption cases. Her return to power began to reflect in court. Several witnesses turned hostile and the prosecutor seemed to be going through the motions of a trial. An acquittal for lack of evidence appeared imminent.
At this stage, the DMK’s senior most leader moved the Supreme Court saying a fair trial of the CM was not possible within Tamil Nadu. The court agreed and transferred the trial to Karnataka. The court also directed the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor whose choice by the Karnataka government would be approved by the High Court. An expeditious trial was ordered as well. All expenses of the trial including the fees of the Special Public Prosecutor, were to be accounted for by Karnataka and paid for by TN.
Dragged and delayed
One of Karnataka's most respected lawyers, B V Acharya, was persuaded to prosecute and the case commenced in all earnestness. However, a whole host of issues were litigated from time to time by one or the other accused. Delay is a known defence tactic.
The defence team kept up a slew of dilatory motions. A speedy trial was dragged on and litigated to the SC at every stage. Curiously, after Jayalalitha lost power again in 2006, the prosecution itself seemed to lack vigour to pursue the case. In 2010, ahead of the assembly polls of 2011, a few deft moves by the then SPP Acharya led to the case picking up steam. A second series of interim motions and legal manoeuvring ensued. The process also led to the resignation of the SPP who had brought the case to near fruition. Five different judges also heard the case over 18 years.
The delay, however, had an inadvertent side effect. Previously, a conviction did not lead to an automatic disqualification as a legislator. Section 8 (4) of the Representation of People Act provided for an automatic stay of disqualification as long as an appeal was filed within time and not disposed off. In 2013, however, the SC invalidated the section as unconstitutional. Politicians like Lalu Prasad and Rashid Masood were the fist to fall prey to the new legalism. Now, a trial court can axe the mighty who can only be revived after full success in their appeal.
Into this background stepped Judge Michael D’Cunha who has a well merited reputation for thoroughness and probity. If sources are to be believed, he is said to have typed and edited the 1100 page judgment by himself, to avoid leakages through secretarial sources.
On 26th September 2014, when Jayalalithaa alighted at Parapana Agrahara special court at 10.30 am, she is reputed to have confidently told her driver that she would return in a couple of hours. It was not to be as the judgment went against her.
After the judgement was delivered, her appeal was filed at the earliest possible moment but hearing on the admission and interim relief is delayed till the October 7. In the meanwhile, her supporters and lawyers seem to be indulging in a competitive frenzy of emotions with major implications for law and order in two states.
While every civilised system of criminal justice has to provide for at least one appeal, the appeal process in this case is bound to be long and delayed. In these circumstances given her gender, age and illness, bail is likely to be given at some stage. Bail may free her but not restore her qualification to be CM.
While she may soon return to Poes garden, Fort St George will still elude her for the foreseeable future. Amma she was and will be, but CM she may not be. She may do well to remember the film industry maxim, “Old stars do not die, they just lose their appeal.”