Sasikala's fate: A lesson for all netas

In J. Jayalalithaa’s case, the law has taken its course, and its toll. The climax was worthy of a well-made cinematic thriller. In the process, a potential chief minister of Tamil Nadu was swept into jail. Some may say that she was a heroine suffering a tragedy, while others would endorse the view that the villain has been justly punished.

Several heroes have emerged from the case. The first was the special judge of Karnataka, John Michael D’Cunha. If money could purchase a judgment, the customers in this case were a capable lot but the judge was not available for sale. He is now an honourable justice of the high court of Karnataka.

Saying that the judges of the Supreme Court were honest would be superfluous — they are expected to be so. It is reassuring to see the highest court in an excellent light.

To B.V. Acharya, the special public prosecutor appointed by the state of Karnataka, with the concurrence of the chief justice of the high court, no praise is high enough. He has proved that the term “honest lawyer” is not just hypothetical — that breed exists and is needed. Out of disgust at the unending harassment, he resigned after substantially completing his job, but before the trial court delivered its judgment, only to be reappointed to argue the case before the Supreme Court. The period in between was fruitful to the accused — they got an acquittal from the high court.

The case started in 1997 when a complaint was filed alleging that Jayalalithaa, and three others, including V.K. Sasikala, conspired together to amass '66 crores or more by abusing Jayalalithaa’s office as chief minister. The then governor of Tamil Nadu, M. Channa Reddy, gave the required sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for the prosecution, thus began the march of the law.

The institution of governor once again came under heavy strain during the past week or so. The governor was accused of undue delay in swearing Sasikala in as chief minister. It is a different matter that his stand has been vindicated. If Sasikala had been sworn in as chief minister, there would have been an unseemly spectacle of a chief minister going to jail three days later, following the judgment. Political turmoil would have surely followed — wholly avoidable and rightly avoided.

Governor C. Vidyasagar Rao had a precedent to follow. In 2001, Jayalalithaa was disqualified from contesting the Assembly elections because she stood convicted by the court in some criminal cases. However, her party secured an absolute majority in the House and elected her as the leader. The governor, a former judge of the Supreme Court, readily swore Jayalalithaa in as chief minister. This action was challenged before the Supreme Court (2001). The court unseated Jayalalithaa from the CM’s chair holding her ineligible to be appointed as chief minister because of the conviction. In the course of the judgment, the Supreme Court observed as follows: “The governor is a functionary under the Constitution and is sworn to ‘preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law’. The governor cannot, in the exercise of his discretion or otherwise, do anything that is contrary to the Constitution and the laws. We are in no doubt at all that if the governor is asked by the majority party in the legislature to appoint as chief minister a person who is not qualified to be a member of the legislature or is disqualified to be such, the governor must, having due regard to the Constitution and the laws, to which he is subject, decline, and the exercise of discretion by him in this regard cannot be called in question.”

In this case, Sasikala was not disqualified but the ominous clouds were hanging over her head. Events have proved that she now stands disqualified till the year 2027. The governor, therefore, was prudent enough to wait.

In March 2002, Jayalalithaa came to power again as chief minister. The allegation was: “With the change in government, three public prosecutors resigned. It appears that IO Mailamma Naidu, who had earlier been given an extension, also resigned. It must be mentioned, even though we are sure that it has nothing to do with the change in government, that due to retirements and routine transfers there were changes in the special judge also. On November 7, 2002 the trial in CC No. 7 of 1997 resumed. It is alleged that since November 7, 2002 when the trial resumed as many as 76 PWs have been recalled for cross-examination on the ground that counsel appearing for the respondents or some of them had earlier been busy in some other case filed against them. It is claimed that the public prosecutor did not object and/or give consent to the witnesses being recalled. Out of total 76 PWs, 64 PWs resiled from their previous statement-in-chief.”

On an application made, the Supreme Court in November 2003 directed transfer of the case from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka — where the trial court finally decided it in 2014 holding the accused guilty.

The Karnataka high court, as directed by the Supreme Court, decided the appeals expeditiously within a year, reversing the trial court’s verdict and acquitting the accused — and the Supreme Court completed the hearing in June 2016 — delivered the judgment on February 14. Older appeals by Lalu Prasad Yadav and other VVIPs are still pending — the convicts are on bail.

There are still many admirers of Jayalalithaa who believe that she was guilty by association. The Supreme Court has ruled out this contention. In any case, if only the judgment were to be pronounced in August-September 2016, as was expected, Jayalalithaa would not have had the funeral that was befitting an empress. However, the clamour for “Bharat Ratna” to her will die a natural death on account of the judgment, which is final. For consumption in political circles the idea of a review or curative petition may be flaunted, but they are generally only theoretical remedies. The verdict delivered after more than six months of deliberations is unlikely to have an “error apparent” which is the main ground for entertaining a review petition.

Has the judgment in Sasikala’s case the salutary effect of curbing political corruption? I do not think so. As an episode in the epic Mahabharata tells us, “we see people dying every day, but the rest of us hope to be immortal. What is more surprising than this?” The politicians may have the judgment examined closely only with a view to avoiding the loopholes into which Sasikala fell.