Jaya case update (Week 4): Senior Advocate R Basant appears for Sasikala, likely to conclude arguments end of the week

Senior Advocate R Basant began his arguments for the second accused, Sasikala in the ongoing disproportionate assets case at the Karnataka High Court today. The retired Kerala High Court judge appeared before Justice Kumaraswamy, in a trial that the Supreme Court has directed to be heard by a Special Bench on a daily basis..In September last year, former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, Sasikala and two others were convicted for having disproportionate assets by Special Judge Michael Cunha. The Karnataka High Court subsequently denied bail to the AIADMK leader, after which the Supreme Court granted bail to Jaya and the other three accused..Earlier this month, Senior Advocates L Nageswara Rao and B Kumar appeared on behalf of Jayalalithaa, refuting charges levelled against her under section 120A of the IPC and sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Sasikala and two others were charged under 120A and 107 of the IPC..Given below is a summary of the arguments made by R Basant today in the Karnataka High Court..Victims of a political rivalry.R Basant today opened his arguments by claiming that Sasikala and the others were caught in the crossfire of two political opponents. He also pointed to fact that the investigation smacked of political interference. Allegedly, the officer who was initially in charge of the enquiry under section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code was replaced by someone who not only had ties to the rival DMK party, but also did not have an IPS background..Living together not sufficient proof of criminal conspiracy.Quoting Shakespeare, Basant said that it was the “unkindest cut of all” for the trial judge to assume that just because all the accused were living together, they were hatching a criminal conspiracy. Describing how Sasikala and Jayalalitha came to be friends, Basant said,.“…they became friends when [Jayalalitha] was in a state of mental turmoil after the death of her mother. [Sasikala] was earning income through Vinod Video Vision and became friends with [Jayalalitha] even before the latter was elected as an MLA of the Tamil Nadu Assembly.”.He further went on to explain how the other three accused had their own sources of income and did not amass wealth as a result of being close to the former Chief Minister..In defence of the companies.Jaya and the accused were alleged to have disproportionate assets of a little over 66 crore, which includes the assets of all entities owned by the four accused. Among these entities were six companies whose income was not declared. Basant argued that if assets of the companies are shown, the income also must be shown in order to give a fairer picture of the accounts. Further, it was argued that there was no evidence to suggest that the companies were holding properties in favour of Jaya..Whether politicians can accept gifts.Understandably, a portion of Jaya’s assets comes from gifts given to her during her tenures as Chief Minister. Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, a public servant can accept a gift only from someone who has no interest in the proceedings or business transacted by the public servant. It will be interesting to see what the court’s ruling will be on this, given the fact that Justice Kumaraswamy agreed that there was a lacuna in the law regarding whether a politician can accept gifts..Witnesses not declared hostile.Basant also brought the court’s attention to the fact that some witnesses changed their testimonies during cross-examination. He noted that 74 witnesses were hostile, out of which only 45 were recalled for a second cross-examination. Out of these, the prosecution chose to examine only 23. At this juncture, Justice Kumaraswamy noted that it was a clever ruse on the part of the prosecution to not declare the witnesses as hostile, so that they could use the valid parts of the testimonies that were in their favour..On a lighter note.Basant also brought a few smiles to the courtroom when he said that judicial officers were getting too much exposure to alternative dispute resolution methods, and becoming panchayat-like bodies as a result. He also lamented the fact that judges were becoming incapable of handling criminal cases. To this, Justice Kumaraswamy posed the question, “What is the definition of a judge?” Basant simplistically replied, “A judge is a person who judges.”.The next hearing will take place tomorrow.