More articles by

Lakshmi Subramanian
Lakshmi Subramanian

KARNATAKA

SC dismisses Karnataka govt review plea in Jaya DA case

supreme-court-of-india1-reuters (File) Supreme Court of India | Reuters

In its review plea filed before the apex court, the Karnataka government said that the court’s finding in the Jaya disproportionate assets case was “an error on the face of the record”

The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, dismissed Karnataka government’s plea to review the abatement of appeal against former Tamil Nadu chief minister Jayalalithaa Jayaram’s acquittal in the disproportionate assets case.

On March 21, in its review plea filed before the apex court, the Karnataka government said that the court’s finding in the Jayalalithaa disproportionate assets case was "an error on the face of the record". The plea also sought to review the abatement of appeal against Jayalalithaa’s acquittal and the recovery of Rs 100 crore fine imposed by a trial court in Bengaluru.

The Supreme Court, in its February 14 judgment in the appeal filed by Karnataka government against the acquittal of Jayalalithaa, Sasikala, Elavarasi and V.N.Sudhakaran, said that the case against Jayalalithaa stood abated with her demise.

In a strongly worded judgment, the bench said, “Accordingly, in view of the reasoning recorded herein above in the preceding paragraphs, 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."

"Nevertheless, to reiterate, having regard to the fact that the charge framed against A2 to A4 is proved, the conviction and sentence recorded against them by the trial court is restored in full including the consequential directions."

The judges, while making strong observations against Jayalalithaa for criminally conspiring with the co-accused Sasikala to launder her ill-gotten wealth, abated the appeal against her acquittal. But they convicted Sasikala, Elavarasi and Sudhakaran. Following this, all three are serving their jail term in the Parappana Agrahara jail near Bengaluru. They have been ordered to pay a fine of Rs 10 crore each.

In its March 21 review petition, the Karnataka state said, “If a party dies after the conclusion of the arguments and the judgment is reserved, there is no question of abatement of appeal and the judgment subsequently pronounced shall have the same force and effect as if the same was pronounced before the death took place.” Further, the review petition also contended that “there are no provisions either in the Constitution or in the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 for such abatement of appeal. On the other hand, the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, provide that both in case of civil appeals as well as election petitions, there will be no abatement if the death takes place after conclusion of hearing".

However, the apex court dismissed Karnataka’s review plea based on merits. Now, with the dismissal of the review plea, Jayalalithaa is not a convict in the wealth case and the fine amount of Rs 100 crore imposed by the trial court need not be realised. According to legal luminaries who have been observing this case closely for years, the state can neither realise the fine amount of Rs 100 crore nor forfeit the properties purchased through the ill-gotten wealth.

The properties already attached by the trial court cannot be forfeited. The state government cannot proceed to forfeit the properties as per the ordinance, and the attached properties—right from her Poes Garden residence to the plush Kodanad tea estates and her jewellery in the RBI treasury—cannot be sold and her legal heirs are entitled to enjoy those properties.

This browser settings will not support to add bookmarks programmatically. Please press Ctrl+D or change settings to bookmark this page.

Related Reading

    Show more