A crucial verdict awaits the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister in the notorious DA case in Bangalore

CHENNAI: Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa Jayaram will most likely spend a sleepless night on Friday, September 26th, ahead of a crucial verdict in the case of disproportionate assets by a special court in Bangalore. As party members and acolytes throng temples, conducting special poojas for her acquittal, Bangalore is quickly filling up with AIADMK cadres – each one waiting nervously for the verdict on their Amma.

Up until about three weeks ago, party workers were confident of an acquittal. But now, the mood has changed. “She might not get acquitted in the special court,” said a senior AIADMK leader who did not wish to be named. “But we are confident of acquittal on appeal,” he added.

As Bangalore readies to provide Z-plus security to the charismatic politician, 6000 police personnel are on alert to prevent mishaps in the event of a conviction in the 18-year-old case.

First term as Chief Minister

Jayalalithaa’s first term as Chief Minister from 1991 to 1996 was marred by a slew of unpopular moves. Riding high on the popularity of then AIADMK leader and former Chief Minister MG Ramachandran, Jayalalithaa landed the top job after an aggressive and high-octane campaign. Soon after coming to power, she made waves by saying that as Chief Minister, she would only take a token salary of Re 1 per month. This display of austerity would come back to haunt her within five years.

Another unpopular move was the grand wedding of her foster son VN Sudhakaran, nephew of her close friend and confidante Sasikala Natarajan. The wedding itself was nothing short of a spectacle! A papier-mache fort over a 70,000 square feet stage, a 2 kilometre long route taken by the groom to the stage adorned with 85-foot high cutouts of Jayalalithaa, fountains and Hindu Gods all around the Poes Garden area – Tamil Nadu had never seen such a wedding before.

“She would have easily continued as Chief Minister like MGR but she made many mistakes between 1991 and 1996,” said Congress leader Thirunavukkarasu, former AIADMK leader who was a Jaya loyalist in the 1980s. “By that time Jaya and I had fallen out so I wasn’t invited to the wedding. But all of us could see what kind of madness was going on in the city. The entire government machinery was being used just for this one wedding,” he added.

Journalists who witnessed the wedding say they could never forget the sight of Jayalalithaa and Sasikala arriving at the venue in a horse-drawn chariot with the then-DGP Walter Devaram running alongside it. “It was crazy, surreal,” said one journalist who did not wish to be named. “I just couldn’t believe my eyes.”

In 1996, the regime changed. DMK’s grand old man, Karunanidhi was back in the hot seat. A string of cases followed against Jayalalithaa, of which, only two remain – the DA case and the IT case.

The DA Case

In 1997, the Department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC) filed a case of disproportionate assets against the former Chief Minister. The unaccounted wealth worked out to Rs 66 crores, a large sum at the time. Raids were conducted at the properties of Jayalalithaa and Sasikala in Chennai and Hyderabad by the Income Tax Department. Companies that they had allegedly set up together as partners, were thoroughly investigated.

Officials recovered documents showing properties worth Rs 58 crores, 30 kilograms of gold including 400 pairs of bangles, 500 kilograms of silver, 10,000 sarees, 750 pairs of footwear and over 100 wristwatches were seized by the authorities. Raids in Jayalalithaa’s posh Poes Garden residence were allowed to be beamed live by television channels.

Jayalalithaa’s pronouncement of austerity now became the albatross around her neck - If she only drew a salary of one rupee per month as Chief Minister, how did she amass so much wealth during five years as Chief Minister with no other known sources of income?

Initially tried by a special court in Chennai, the trial was shifted to Bangalore in 2001, when Jayalalithaa came back to power. DMK’s General Secretary Anbazhagan impleaded himself in the case and would, in time, become the key driving force in pushing the case forward to its logical end.

In the past 18 years, Jayalalithaa’s lawyers have insisted in court that the sarees and the jewellery were gifts given to her by film directors during her cine days. Jayalalithaa too has maintained that she was a “silent partner” in a number of companies along with Sasikala and a slew of her relatives – she claims she had no knowledge of the money that was being routed through these companies.

“We are optimistic and we have completed arguments,” said Jayalalithaa’s counsel B Kumar. “We are awaiting the court’s verdict,” he added. Counsel for Sasikala, Ashokan, refused to comment.

The last leg of the DA case has seen a lot of drama. The case itself has been tried by seven judges and three public prosecutors over a period of 18 years. Special Public prosecutor BV Acharya in 2012 asked Jayalalithaa’s lawyers how she was able to visit the Chamundeswari temple in Karnataka but couldn’t appear in court despite repeated orders by the judge.

Following pressure from the AIADMK, Acharya resigned and Bhavani Singh was appointed in his place in 2013. When the DMK alleged that Singh was favouring Jayalalithaa, the court removed him as Special Public Prosecutor.

Strangely, Jayalalithaa went to Supreme Court asking for reinstatement of the Special Public Prosecutor – Bhavani Singh was reinstated.

In March 2014, Bhavani Singh was fined Rs 65,000 by Justice Michael D’Cunha for delaying the trial by three days – Singh simply did not show up at court. When Singh applied for 10 days leave for medical reasons, Justice D’Cunha again fined him Rs 65,000 for needlessly delaying court proceedings. Singh moved the Supreme Court, in vain. Trial continued.

By August 28, all arguments by prosecution and defence were completed. Orders were set for September 20th but later pushed to September 27th as the Bangalore police asked for more time to make adequate security arrangements.

A Crucial Verdict

“Politically, whether it is acquittal or conviction in this case, it is a very important date for Jaya,” said Thirunavukkarasu. “Whether she is convicted or acquitted, there will be an effect of this case on Tamil Nadu politics,” he said. As per the 2013 Supreme Court ruling, Jaya will have to step down immediately as Chief Minister and cannot contest elections for the next six years if convicted.

“If she is found guilty of having disproportionate wealth, it would mean that corruption charges are true,” said political analyst Gnani. “That will be huge and it will reflect in the next elections in 2016. A hefty fine and a stint in jail could bring down her image in the public sphere. Politically, this case is very crucial for Jayalalithaa.”

Sources within the AIADMK say that she has chalked out the succession plan in case of an unfavourable verdict. Tried and tested O Panneerselvam, current Finance Minister is the most likely candidate to take over as CM if she has to resign. “He has already been CM before, when Amma had to resign for two weeks,” said the source. “He is the best choice, a thorough Amma loyalist and he will follow her orders.”

As D-Day arrives, a battle of 18 years comes to a close. And Tamil Nadu will watch and wait with bated breath.

CASES AGAINST JAYALALITHAA

1996
Disproportionate Assets Case


- Charge: Amassed wealth disproportionate to known sources of income to the tune of Rs 66 crores

- Status: Orders in case on September 20th 2014

IT case

- Charge: Non-filing of personal IT returns in 1993-94 and not filing returns of Sasi Enterprises for the years 1991-92 and 1992-93

- Status: Hearing continues

Colour TV case

- Charge: Misused position of power to procure 45,000 colour TV sets by the government at a premium of Rs 14,000 per piece over and above the market rate

- Status: Acquitted

TANSI case

- Charge: Misused position of power to buy government land at throwaway price, depriving exchequer of Rs 8.53 crores

- Status: Convicted in lower court but acquitted by Supreme Court

THE DA CASE

The Charges

- Total amount of unaccounted wealth possessed: Rs 66 crores

- Land amassed to the tune of Rs 58 crores

- 30 kilograms of gold (including 400 pairs of bangles)

- 500 kilograms of silver

- 10,000 sarees

- 750 pairs of footwear

- Over 100 wrist watches

-----------------------------------------------------------------