The Jayalalithaa DA case in a nutshell

The Jayalalithaa DA case in a nutshell
The Jayalalithaa DA case in a nutshell
Written by:

The News Minute| Spetember 26, 2014| 11.45 pm IST

On Saturday, a Bangalore court will pronounce judgement in the eighteen year old disproportionate assets case against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa. 

The case

Registered in 1997 against Jayalalithaa after her term as chief minister from 1991 to 1996 , the charges were regarding a disproportionate jump in her wealth from Rs. 2.01 crore in 1991 to Rs. 66.65 crore in 1996, not comparable to the declared sources of income.

The charge sheet in the case was filed in 1997 and trial began in Chennai in 2000. But the case was moved to Bangalore in 2003 on a plea by the DMK, that claimes that a trial in Chennai would be “unfair” as Jayalalithaa had become Chief Minister again in 2001. During that period, Jayalalithaa had declared her monthly salary to be Re.1, which highlighted the point that her income was not proportionate to her assets.

Major allegations in chargesheet

The chargesheet filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act said that the accused in the case, Jayalalithaa, her aide Sasikala, Sasikala’s nephew and Jayalalithaa’s foster son Sudhakaran and Ilavarasi, sister-in-law of Sasikala had purchased over 32 shell companies, some in benami names.
Sasikala, Ilaivarasai and Sudhakaran were made directors in many of these companies.

The chargesheet says that crores of money was deposited through cheques, demand deposits and sometimes cash into accounts of these companies and was later transferred to accounts of Namadu MGR (a publication run by AIADMK) and a cable company called Super Duper.

One of the main witnesses questioned in the case was a man named Rama Vijayan, who used to work at Jayalalithaa’s residence Poes Garden and was apparently in-charge of depositing money. The investigators had recovered pay-in slips and details of bank transactions, which were later confirmed by Rama Vijayan.

Chargesheet also mentions Jayalalithaa’s foster son Sudhakaran’s wedding in Chennai, an estimated Rs 6 crores was splurged for the wedding. (Jayalalithaa’s defense has said in court that these expenses were borne by the bride’s side) 

Jayalalithaa is also accused of building three posh residences- at Kodanadu (Ooty), Siruthavur (Kancheepuram) and Poes Garden (Chennai).

PWD estimated that renovation costs at her Poes Garden residence cost an estimated Rs. 5 crore and was included in chargesheet. 

The properties bought by companies owned by her from Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation (TANSI) cost Rs one crore. 

In addition to this, Sudhakaran was accused of purchasing many properties along with Sasikala and Ilaivarasi that included Ramraj agro mills (Coimbatore), Maha Subbalakshmi wedding hall (Chennai), a chemical company in Chennai, 1000 acres of land in Tirunelveli and an agro farm in addition to other properties.

Some properties bought in Chennai including a building in Mylapore, plot at Guindy Industrial estate and two apartments were also included in the chargesheet.

Jayalalithaa’s defense

Jayalalithaa’s lawyers have maintained throughout the trial that:
a. She being an actress of yesteryears had enough wealth to make some of the purchases.
b. She and others had no connection with many of the companies mentioned in case.
c. The money collected and deposited into Namadu MGR account was legitimate and were subscription deposits paid by crores of AIADMK workers across state.
d. The DMK government lead investigation has deliberately over valued all the assets in their possession.
e. They argued that the investigating officer Nallama Naidu had not done his job effectively as a preliminary enquiry had not been conducted in the case.

What the prosecution said

a. Investigating officer for the case Nallama Naidu had got all sale deeds for all properties and made enquiries with people who sold the properties. There were 259 witnesses of which many were people who sold properties.
b. Jayalalithaa had not filed IT returns for this term and the ones filed later also did not show this much wealth.
c. Subscription deposits collected by Namadu MGR was illegal as it had no RBI sanction.
d. Sasikala, Ilaivarasi and Sudhakaran had no means of income to justify the wealth amassed.
e. Shell companies were purchased to divert money easily.

Related Stories

No stories found.
The News Minute