Jayalalithaa spent only Rs 28.68 lakh on wedding: Karnataka HC

Bengaluru: As against the findings of the trial court which assessed the marriage expenses of V.N. Sudhakaran, foster son of AIADMK supremo J. Jayalalithaa, at '3 crore, the Karnataka High Court stated that she spent only Rs 28.68 lakh towards the marriage, which was dubbed as the ‘mother of all weddings’, held in 1995 when she was CM.

“There is no acceptable evidence to point out Jayalalithaa has spent Rs 3 crore. In spite of it, the trial court has arrived at a figure of Rs 3 crore as modest and conservative estimation. Arriving at Rs 3 crore towards marriage expenses and fixing liability of Rs 3 cr to Jayalalithaa alone is not proper,” the HC ruled.

Read: Courting victory: Jayalalithaa acquitted in disproportionate assets case

It said the material witness, father of the bride Narayanaswamy, has not been examined. “He was a proper person to speak about the marriage expenses of his daughter. The prosecution has not examined him. No plausible explanation is forthcoming as to why he was not examined. He was working as a professor in Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai. The material evidence has been withheld. His evidence on record discloses that he has spent about Rs 18 lakh. There is positive evidence to the effect that workers of AIADMK have met the expenses of food and pandal.”

On Oscar winning composer A.R. Rahman and  Mandolin Srinivas performing at the wedding ceremony, the court observed that they performed free of cost. “The bridegroom’s grandfather is Mr Sivajiganeshan. He was a famous actor. He was known to A.R. Rahman,” it said.

Read: Jayalalithaa verdict: Pin drop silence in packed court hall

On the income from Ms Jayalalithaa’s vineyard, the court stated that no doubt income tax returns were filed late, but that itself cannot be the ground to reject the income from the vineyard. Even in the earlier returns filed, income from the vineyard has been mentioned.

Gifts

Ms Jayalalithaa has claimed that she received Rs 2,15,00,000 as gift during the marriage of her foster son and during her birthdays from her party workers, friends and well-wishers. “She has filed IT returns to that effect before the authorities. No doubt, there is a delay in submitting the income tax returns. That has been accepted by the income tax authorities. Besides, there was a marriage function of foster son and her birthday. In Tamil Nadu, there is a practice of giving gifts to political leaders on their birthdays. She has also claimed foreign remittance of Rs 77 lakh. Taking into consideration all these aspects, as per the court’s view, the income that arises from the gifts is around Rs 1,50,00,000,” it said.

Read: ‘Expect snap polls, going is very good for Jaya’

Footwear

“There were four members residing along with many servants. The prosecution has not segregated the footwear. Following which the court declined to take the value of the footwear,” it said.

Apparel

On 6,195 silk sarees, chudidhars and other apparel, the court said, “Age of the sarees is not mentioned. There were three women residing at No. 31, Poes Garden. The prosecution has not segregated apparel of the accused. Besides, Jaya was an actress from the age of 18. Most of the apparel which were used for shooting was handed over to her by the film producers,” it stated.

Read: Green flag for metro rail, other projects after Jayalaithaa’s acquittal

Agnihotri case

It is well settled law that as per the Krishnanand Agnihotri’s case, when there is disproportionate assets to extent of 10%, the accused are entitled for acquittal. A circular has been issued by government of AP that disproportionate asset to the extent of 20% can also be considered as a permissible limit. Margin of 10% to 20% of the disproportionate assets has been taken as a permissible limit, taking into consideration the inflationary measures.

Read: Jayalalithaa acquitted, expected to assume office soon

Remark

On known sources of income under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the HC said, “People of this country do deserve to know about the assets of those who have themselves chosen to be in public life and who would be governing them. Those who choose to be in public service owe at least this much to the people of the country. Transparency about the assets of those holding public offices may be useful at least for forming public opinion, if not for the proof of cases of disproportionate assets against the erring ones. And, who knows, it may go a long way in curbing corruption in public life whose tentacles are all pervasive in all walks of life in country today.”