by Mr. Gnani Sankaran, Chennai
AIADMK general secretary Me. J. Jayalalithaa
has proved to be the phoenix of Tamil Nadu
politics yet again.
Each time she has been driven to a corner in the past,
she has fought back and regained her position.
In 1987, when she stood by the mortal remains of her
political mentor mr. M. G. Ramachandran (MGR), she was hounded out by fellow
AIADMK leaders supporting MGR's `official' widow, Janaki Ramachandran.
 |
| Mr. Gnani Sankaran, Chennai |
In 1989, Ms. Jayalalithaa was humiliated in the infamous
`sari-pulling' incident in the assembly after she spoke against the then-DMK
chief minister Mr. K. Karunanidhi.
Ms. Jayalalithaa has had two major brushes with the law
so far. She got off lightly the first time when the Supreme Court found her
guilty of violating government rules by purchasing government Tansi land for
her private company .
The court let her go without punishment since she had
returned the land to the government, a strange and unprecedented legal gesture
from the judiciary .
Her second brush with the law proved to be more arduous.
The case dragged on for 18 years, with the accused employing every trick in the
book to delay the judicial process.
Ms. Jayalalithaa had to quit office, cease being a
legislator, was banned for 10 years from contesting any elections.And yet,
yesterday , Justice Mr. C. R Kumaraswamy took less than three minutes to acquit
her of all charges, after finding that she had not amassed . 66.65 crore as
earlier thought by the ` special court in Bengaluru in September 2014, but only
`a few crores'.
What does this judgment now mean politically to Tamil
Nadu? One can safely predict an early dissolution of the state assembly due for
elections in May 2016. Jayalalithaa would definitely like to take full
advantage by claiming that she has been `victimised'.
She would prefer to do this at the earliest when her
main opponents -the DMK, the Paattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) and the Desiya
Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam (DMDK) -are weak and disorganised.
The BJP , desperate to gain a foothold in Tamil Nadu in
the vacuum created by the `two corrupt Dravidian parties', will change its tune
and seek an alliance with the AIADMK. The objective of this being to improve
its vote-share and MLA-share in the state.
The DMK is already reeling under factionalism. It also
has to worry about the outcome of the 2G scam cases against some of its leaders
coming up in the coming months. A grand alliance of the DMK, Congress, the
DMDK, the Tamil Maanila Congress (TMC), Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK)
and a few other smaller parties is likely. But it is unlikely to be politically
sufficient.
 |
| Ms.J. JAYALALITHAA |
The judgment definitely dampens any anti-corruption
agenda seeking the support of the judiciary . The truth is, corruption is here
to stay. Ms. Jayalalithaa's case relates to the period 1991-96 when she was
chief minister. She returned to power twice after that, but has no case against
her since.
The then-chief minister Karunanidhi and several of his
ministers were deemed `scientifically corrupt' by the Sarkaria Commission in
the late 1970s. But, the cases based on the commission's findings were
subsequently withdrawn through a tactical political alliance with the Congress.
The DMK returned to power three times after that, but
has no corruption case against it since worth talking about.
Does all this mean that both the DMK & the AIADMK,
somewhere down the line, became honest and upright after initial strayings?
The case of Mr. T. M. Selvaganapathy, a minister in the
AIADMK government, is illuminating. The case registered against him for
corruption by the subsequent DMK government was withdrawn when he left the
AIADMK & joined the DMK.
But there was one hitch. The CBI court would not allow
the case to be withdrawn. Subsequently , Mr. Selvaganapathy was found guilty
-by which time the AIADMK had returned to power and Mr. Selvaganapathy had
become a DMK Rajya Sabha MP .
Due to the landmark judgment, he was disqualified from
the MP's post.
The lesson one learns from the Mr. Selvaganapathy case
is that a corruption charge can be `made' or / `unmade' in Tamil Nadu according
to the political loyalty of the accused.
The key legal principle that Mr. Kumaraswamy employed
using a precedent to acquit Ms. Jayalalithaa was that the accused is eligible
for acquittal if the quantum of disproportionate asset is only `10%' over and
above the known accounted income.
According to the learned judge, Ms. Jayalalithaa had
acquired `only 8.12%'. Hence, she was `eligible for acquittal'.
It is now for the electorate to set the benchmark for
tolerance of corruption. Should it be `8.12%', `10%', `1%' or none at all?
DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.
Author's Contact
No comments:
Post a Comment