Conscience Calls

"Irrespective of whether we reach the conclusion that A-1 [Jayalalitha] is guilty of the offenceswith which she is charged or not, she must atone for the same by answering her conscience in the light of whatwe have stated."

-- Justices S. Rajendra Babu and P. Venkatarama Reddi in their judgment in the Tansi cases.

Immediately after hearing of her acquittal, the Tamil Nadu chief minister J. Jayalalitha "atoned"by answering the call of her "conscience"—she rushed to the Aadipureeswarar Udanurai VadivudaiAmman temple on the outskirts of Chennai with friend Sasikala Natarajan in tow.

Since the setting up of three special courts by the previous DMK government to expedite trial in the 12major cases of corruption against the AIADMK leader, there’s been uncertainty over her political career. Andit was in the Tansi cases that the special judge P.Anbazhagan convicted Jayalalitha, Sasikala and four otherson October 9, 2000. Jayalalitha was sentenced to three years RI in the Jaya Publications case; and to twoyears in the Sasi Enterprises case.

This disqualified Jayalalitha from contesting the May 2001 Assembly poll, despite which she assumed chiefministership and was asked to step down in September 2001 by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. Shebounced back as CM when the Madras High Court judge N.Dinakar acquitted her in December 2001.

Two appeals were filed by DMK’s legal wing secretary R.S. Bharathi, and the Janata Party presidentSubramanian Swamy, challenging the acquittal. Now, after a seven-year trial spread over three courts,Jayalalitha stands exonerated. But she still has other legal battles to fight. Just a week earlier, anotherbench of the Supreme Court had transferred the Rs. 66.65 crores disproportionate assets case to the BangaloreHigh Court to ensure fair trial.

When the contentious Tamil Nadu Small Scale Industries property—3.07 acres of land belonging to thestate-owned Tansi Foundry and Tansi Enamel Wire—was purchased by Jayalalitha and Sasikala on 29 May 1992,Jayalalitha as a public servant was seen to attract Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. Also, Section 169 of IPC states that public servants legally bound not to purchase certain propertyshall be punished if they do so. But the apex court pointed out that what is "legally bound not to"is not defined.

The SC bench judgment—52 pages long and pronounced 14 months after arguments were concluded—is premisedon the fact that Tansi is not government property. But in the Mysore Paper Mills Limited case of 2002, adivision bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the appellant company "is nothing but an instrumentalityand agency of the state government".

In 2001, dealing with the issue of disinvestment of Balco, a three-judge Supreme Court bench, whichincluded P.V. Reddi, had noted, "BALCO [is] a State within the meaning of Article 12 of theConstitution." Says lawyer K.M.Vijayan of the Madras High Court, "What matters here is theinterpretation of 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. This act is about prevention of corruption and not about evidencingcorruption and meting out punishment."

The judgment came down heavily in its moral disapproval of the property transactions. But asks one lawyer:"If it immoral, how is not illegal in the constitutional sense?" As part of atonement, the SC benchasked Jayalalitha and Sasikala to return the Tansi property to the state unconditionally. "However,"wonders Vijayan, "when Sasikala filed an affidavit seeking to return the property, the same bench onSeptember 24, 2002 termed it ‘irrelevant’ to the proceedings under way. Then, what’s the logic behindasking them to return it now?"

Moreover, since Jayalalitha denied that the transaction bore her signature in the trial court, how can she"return" the property now? Says Vijayan: "The Supreme Court must have taken into accountJayalalitha’s conduct in the trial court. In the US, she would have been charged with perjury. In theLewinsky case, Clinton was pulled up for lying."

A Code of Conduct for Ministers was brought into force by a 1968 Government Order. The Code requires aminister to "refrain from buying from, or selling to, the Government any immovable property".However, the two-judge SC bench observed that Jayalalitha had not violated the Code of Conduct since it"did not have a statutory status". Says lawyer Sriram Panchu, "The implication is that aminister can go about acquiring state-owned property and not be punished for the same. This isdisturbing."

If the Code for ministers does not have a binding value, then why have it at all, is the question evenletters-to-editors are asking. Some lawyers point out that the SC position incidentally also calls intoquestion the statutory status of all Government Orders (GOs). At the same time, if the Election Commission’scode of conduct can be implemented effectively, why not the Code of Conduct for ministers? Most recently,Sonia Gandhi was pulled up by the EC for using a Chattisgarh state helicopter.

Legal experts may debate this judgment endlessly, but Jayalalitha today is a relieved woman. On the way to herPoes Garden residence, a hoarding shows Amma lighting the lamp against the backdrop of an India map, and thecaption reads: When will you enlighten India?

Soon enough.