There
was a lot of activity in Tamilnadu politics with a sharp price rise
in transport charges, PDS materials and electricity charges. Also,
many of the perks of the state government employees were suspended
for the time-bring and f or sometime to come. This annoyed the greater
cross-sections of Tamilnadu people. The opposition parties called
for protest demonstrations. Although the government has logic to tighten
the state economy, it should have done after a threadbare analysis
of the situation and after exploring all possible ways to contain
the deficit. When it has come to a conclusion to raise three price,
it should have gone step by step and after taking people into confidence
as to the necessity of this harsh step. Raising prices in all walks
of life all at a time and without nay proper explanation conveys a
point that this government does not care about downtrodden. Having
raised the price, to score a political goal, the government softened
the hike by reducing the level of hike. If raising the prices without
proper consultation and explanation is the first mistake, withdrawing
the hike for politicla reasons is a bigger mistake than the first
one.
Amidst such a situation, there comes an all-important verdict that
brightened the political prospects of the AIADMK leader, Ms. Jayalalithaa.
The Madras High Court on 5th December 2001, acquitted her and all
others, including her friend, Ms. N. Sasikalaa, of all charges in
the TANSI land deal and Pleasant Stay Hotel cases. Last year the Special
Court-III had convicted Ms. Jayalalithaa, Ms. Sasikalaa and four others
to three years and two years imprisonment in the Jaya Publications
and the Sasi Enterprises cases respectively. Although the sale transactions
took place in 1991-92, the cases against them were filed only when
the DMK came to power in 1996. The main charge was that the two (as
partners in the firms) committed criminal misconduct by purchasing
the land (by undervaluation) and four others, mainly officials, abetted
in the conspiracy.
Mr. Justice N. Dinakar set aside the conviction and the sentences
of the Special Court-III, which had made Ms. Jayalalitha ineligible
to contest polls in May 2001. Thus, the judgments effectively removed
the electoral disqualification Ms. Jayalalithaa faced due to the conviction,
and cleared the decks for her to contest the polls again.
The judge rejected almost all the key arguments advanced by the Special
Public Prosecutor, Mr. K.V. Venkatapathi, including those relating
to the ownership of the TANSI properties, the guideline value-market
value factor and the "signature" of Ms. Jayalalitha in the sale deed.
The judge said that the "TANSI property was neither a trust property,
nor was it under the control of the Government. The sale deed mentions
that the vendor was TANSI and it was the absolute owner of the property.''
Justice Dinakar remarked that the trial judge was not justified in
taking the market value to arrive at the conclusion that a huge loss
was caused to the State exchequer. It is surprising that if the sale
was done as per the guideline value and the sale was by open tender
, how come in the first place the amount of loss to the exchequer
was arrived at. The guideline value and market value are two different
concepts. As the justice mentioned in his verdict the "market value"
is vague, uncertain and a matter of guess-work.'' Even when a person
buys a house, the registration charge is based on the guideline value
only and not base don’t he market value.
The Public Prosecutor failed to conclusive prove that the signature
found in the document was that of Ms. Jayalalitha. It is a mystery
as to why the prosecution did not prove that by sending the document
to a hand- writing expert.
Legislations Required
Justice Dinakar while dealing with the prosecution charge against
Ms. Jayalalithaa under Sec. 169 IPC (prohibiting a public servant
from buying government property) has mentioned that "there must be
a specific law prohibiting a public servant from purchasing a property
and if the said public servant is not bound by any law, then his act
does not become illegal". He had also noted that the terminology "legally
bound not to..." has not been defined in the Code of Conduct for public
servants. Justice Dinakar said the definition of the term "legally
bound to do..." found in Section 43 IPC could not be imported to the
Section in question. He acquitted Ms. Jayalalithaa on the ground that
she did not attract the provisions of the Code since the Supreme Court
had also held that the property owned by the Corporation could not
be treated as property of the Government. These remarks should attract
the attention of those who insist on probity in public life. All said,
the MD for a corporation is appointed by or under the influence of
the politicians in power. Also, the corporations are technically not
owned by the government however they are also formed out of and funded
by using the tax payers' money. There should be an immediate legislation
defining the term "public servant" and also bring in the corporations
and boards under the term "government assets" or "public assets" without
infringing on the independence of the boards and corporations. Technically
Jaya is acquitted but the moral shadow based on the code of conduct
still looms large on her.
Pleasant Stay Hotel Case
In the Pleasant Stay hotel case, Ms. Jayalalitha and four others were
charged with granting exemption to a seven- storey building at Kodaikanal,
violating rules. The Special Court-II had convicted her last year
to a year's imprisonment, while sentencing others to two-year imprisonment.
In the Pleasant Stay Hotel case, Mr. Justice Dinakar doubted the very
existence of the dissenting additional note of the Municipal Administration
Secretary, Mr. P.C. Cyriac, and also noted that the prosecution had
failed to establish the existence of mens rea (guilty mind) in the
entire process. It wa snoted that the proposal to amend the building
rules came from the Advocate-General, and not from Ms. Jayalalitha
and Mr. Selvaganapathy.
What Ms Jayalalitha should do now?
The Janata Party president, Dr. Subramanian Swamy, who was allowed
to make written submissions in the appeal proceedings, announced that
he would move the Supreme Court against the acquittals. In both the
cases, the performance of the prosecution in the High Court when these
cases came up for hearing raises a lot of suspicion. If the prosecution
was helpless, how come the Special Court delivered such a drastic
judgement, which affected the Tamilnadu politics. It would be wise
if Ms Jayalalitha waits till she wins the Andipatty by-election in
February before she proceeds towards Fort St.George. It would add
fame to her if she desists from taking the reins of power till the
SupremeCourt clears her from the review petition on her acquittals.
She should also keep in mind that she is facing nine more cases in
the Special Courts and although she is not charge-sheeted in those
cases, as a good practice she should wait till she is cleared of all
cases. If she rushes to the Chief Ministerial Chair, it would not
add fame to her especially when she claims that she is a God-believer
and an honest and innocent person. She should concentrate on party
work allowing Mr Pannerselvam to function independently with the advice
of his cabinet. This alone would improve the image of Tamilnadu politics
and more true with her own image.
