World
India
The Supreme Court has rejected a petition from the legal heir of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa, seeking the return of properties confiscated in a disproportionate assets (DA) case.
The Court emphasized that the closure of legal proceedings after her passing does not equate to an acquittal.
A bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma referred to its 2017 ruling in State of Karnataka v. J. Jayalalithaa, which abated proceedings against her due to her death during the appeal process.
The bench clarified, “The cessation of proceedings means that further review of the High Court’s judgment acquitting the accused will not continue. However, this does not establish the finality of the High Court’s ruling.”
Jayalalithaa’s niece filed the petition to claim ownership of the confiscated properties, but on January 29, a special CBI court transferred the assets to the Tamil Nadu government, reinforcing that abatement does not nullify prior legal findings.
This ruling aligns with the Karnataka High Court’s January 13 verdict, which dismissed a plea by Jayalalithaa’s niece and nephew, J. Deepa and J. Deepak. The court upheld the asset confiscation, stating that the Supreme Court had already confirmed the lower court’s conviction of co-accused individuals, making the asset seizure valid.
Jayalalithaa was convicted for amassing wealth disproportionate to her known income. Despite her passing in 2016, the Supreme Court maintained that her assets remained subject to confiscation since her legal culpability had been established before her demise.
The Tamil Nadu government now controls key properties, including Veda Nilayam—Jayalalithaa’s renowned residence in Poes Garden, Chennai—along with land holdings, estates, bank deposits, gold jewelry, and other assets accumulated between July 1, 1991, and April 30, 1996.
The High Court has permitted her heirs to submit documentary proof if they can substantiate claims that any assets were purchased before the check period. If validated, they may be entitled to compensation for the value of such assets, even if the properties have been auctioned.
Read More: Supreme Court To Hear In April Pleas To Bring Political Parties Under RTI
