Jayalalithaa's case was abated, not an exoneration: Supreme Court
What's the story
The Supreme Court of India has clarified that its 2017 order in the disproportionate assets (DA) case against former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa doesn't mean she's been acquitted.
"Abatement means that the question as to whether the high court was right in acquitting the accused is not being considered further. It is not an imprimatur on her acquittal," said a bench led by Justice BV Nagarathna.
Plea dismissal
Supreme Court dismisses plea for return of attached properties
The clarification came after Jayalalithaa's niece J Deepa filed a petition seeking the return of properties attached by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) of Tamil Nadu.
The Karnataka High Court had earlier refused to release these properties, which are set for auction.
The Supreme Court dismissed Deepa's plea, reinforcing that abatement doesn't mean finality of acquittal.
Case history
Jayalalithaa's initial conviction and subsequent acquittal
Jayalalithaa was first convicted in September 2014 by a Karnataka trial court and sentenced to four years in prison.
However, she was acquitted by the Karnataka High Court in May 2015.
This acquittal was challenged in the Supreme Court, resulting in the 2017 order which abated proceedings against her due to her demise.
Evidence scrutiny
Supreme Court's analysis of evidence in Jayalalithaa's case
Notably, the Supreme Court had earlier restored the trial court's judgment against co-accused Sasikala, VN Sudhakaran, and J Elavarasi, while observing Jayalalithaa's role in the conspiracy.
The court had said, "We have analyzed evidence adduced by parties and we come to conclusion that A1 to A4 have entered into a conspiracy."
It added Jayalalithaa had assets disproportionate to her known income when she was CM from June 1991 to May 1996.
Auction approval
Court allows auction of attached properties despite arguments
Advocate M Sathya Kumar, appearing for Deepa, argued that some confiscated items were gifts from Jayalalithaa's mother before her political career.
However, despite this argument, the bench allowed DVAC to proceed with auctioning the properties.
The court didn't interfere with claims regarding pre-check period properties, leaving such matters for legal heirs to pursue according to law.