Jewels In the Crown

But eight years later the trial in the case is far from over. It has, in fact, taken a strange legal detour—from the Madras High Court to the Supreme Court and now to a special court in Bangalore.

LAST November the Supreme Court ordered the transfer of the politically sensitive case from Tamil Nadu to the Karnataka High Court, expressing fears that the ‘‘process of justice may be subverted’’ if the trial was held in Tamil Nadu. But a year later the trial is yet to resume.

Says DMK lawyer and former special prosecutor Shanmugasundaram who handled the corruption cases against Jayalalithaa during the erstwhile Karunanidhi regime: ‘‘We are not sure when the trial will resume. The translation of the documents are being done now.’’ The bumpy journey of the case also narrates a tale of how a changing political climate can turn the course of a case.

On June 4, 1997, the DVAC filed the chargesheet in the case in a special court in Chennai. The prosecution case had alleged that Jayalalithaa and her friend Sasikalaa Natarajan, Sasikalaa’s nephew V N Sudhagaran and her sister-in-law J Ilavarasi had bought palatial farmhouses and bungalows in and around Chennai, agricultural land at Oothukottai and Tirunelveli district, farmhouses in Hyderabad, a tea estate in the Nilgiris, industrial sheds in Chennai, besides piling up jewellery and making investments in financial firms.

Then began a legal shadowboxing between the DMK regime and Jayalalithaa’s army of lawyers. The second accused, Sasikalaa, claimed that she could not read English and that all documents be furnished in Tamil. The court acceded to her plea, and the DMK regime hired nearly 100 translators and got the translation done within four months.

AFTER a few hiccups the trial began and by 2000-end the examination of most of the witnesses was complete. Just when the court was set to pronounce its verdict, the electorate’s verdict in the 2001 Assembly elections brought the trial to an abrupt halt.

With Jayalalithaa returning to power, the defendants turned prosecutors. The new special prosecutor recalled as many as 76 witnesses for fresh examination. Of them, 64 backed out of their earlier recorded statements. But the prosecution did not declare them hostile witnesses. Curiously, the court also witnessed a rare spectacle of the prosecutor grilling the investigating officer.

When the prosecution pushed ahead with the trial, the rival DMK stepped in to apply the brakes. The DMK general secretary, K Anbazhagan moved the Supreme Court seeking a transfer of the case outside of Tamil Nadu to ensure free and fair trial.

On November 18, 2003, a bench of the court ordered the transfer of two ‘‘disproportionate wealth’’ cases against to a special court to be set up in Bangalore. The Supreme Court insisted that the trial start as soon as possible and proceed on a day-to-day basis until completion.

However, even a year later the trial is yet to begin. Only a few weeks ago, the Tamil Nadu Government despatched the case documents to Karnataka. And now remains the arduous task of translating 8,000 pages of documents.