Disproportionate Asset case against Jayalalithaa
File picture of Jayalalithaa
|
|
| Date | 14 June 1996 |
|---|---|
| Location | Chennai |
| Participants | J.Jayalalithaa, Sasikala Natarajan, Ilavarasi, ranjith kumar |
| Charges | Misuse of office, Disproportionate assets, Criminal conspiracy, Corruption |
| Verdict | High Court: Acquitted of all charges, bail bonds discharged. Trial Court: 4 years simple imprisonment for all four, a fine of ₹100 crore for Jayalalithaa and ₹10 crores for the other three |
| Convictions | High Court: none; Trial Court: 4. |
| Litigation | 18 years |
Jayalalithaa Jayaram (born 24 February 1948-05 December 2016), commonly referred to as Jayalalithaa, was an Indian politician who was the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu convicted for misusing her office during her tenure of 1991-96, especially her foster son lavish marriage in 1996 and to amass properties worth more than ₹66.65 crores (10 million USD). The assets under the purview of the case are the farm houses and bungalows in Chennai, agricultural land in Tamil Nadu, a farm house in Hyderabad, a tea estate in the Nilgiris, valuable jewelry, industrial sheds, cash deposits and investments in banks and a fleet of luxury cars. A raid in her Poes garden residence in 1997 recovered 800 kg (1,800 lb) silver, 28 kg (62 lb) gold, 750 pairs of shoes, 10,500 sarees, 91 watches and other valuables. The valuables were kept in a vault in Reserve Bank of India in Chennai. Opposition parties petitioned to request the court to take the control of the assets, but the special judge John Michael Cunha who inspected the assets on 7 January 2014, ordered the assets to be transferred to Bangalore.
The trial went on for 18 years and was transferred to Bangalore from Chennai. The judgement was pronounced on 27 September 2014 in the Special Court which convicted all four accused namely Jayalalithaa, Sasikala Natarajan, Ilavarasi and V.N. Sudhakaran and sentenced all to four years simple imprisonment. While Jayalalithaa was fined ₹100 crores, the other three were fined ₹10 crore each. The case had political implications as it was the first case where a ruling Chief minister had to step down on account of a court sentence. She was convicted for the third time overall and was forced to step down from the Chief Minister's office for the second time. She was also the seventh politician and the first MLA from the state and third overall to be disqualified after the Supreme Court judgment in July 2013 on the Representation of People's Act that prevents convicted politicians from holding office.
In May 2015, Justice C.R. Kumaraswamy of the Karnataka High Court overturned the trial court's verdict and acquitted Jayalalithaa and others of all charges. This paved the way for Jayalalithaa's return to power as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu on the 23rd of May, 2015.
Jayalalithaa is a three-time chief minister of the South Indian state of Tamil Nadu. Jayalalithaa was accused of misusing her office during her first tenure as chief minister during 1991-96 to amass properties worth ₹66.65 crores and depositing the amount in her proxy accounts. The assets under the purview of the case span over 1,200 hectares including the farm houses and bungalows in Chennai, agricultural land in Tamil Nadu, a farm house in Hyderabad, a tea estate in the Nilgiris, valuable jewelry, industrial sheds, cash deposits and investments in banks and investments and a set of luxury cars. A raid in her Poes garden residence in 1997 recovered 800 kg (1,800 lb) silver, 28 kg (62 lb) gold, 750 pairs of shoes, 10,500 sarees, 91 watches and other valuables. The valuables were kept in a vault in Reserve Bank of India in Chennai. The opposition party petitioned to request the court to take the control of the assets, but the special judge John Michael Cunha who inspected the assets on 7 January 2014, ordered the assets to be transferred to Bangalore. The judgement of the case was pronounced on 27 September 2014 in the Special Court which convicted all four including Jayalalithaa guilty. The case had political implications as it was the first case where a ruling Chief minister had to step down on account of a court verdict.
...
Wikipedia