What happens now to Jayalalithaa’s wealth?

With the Supreme Court judgment on the disproportionate assets (DA) case against the former chief minister of Tamil Nadu late J Jayalalithaa, VK Sasikala and her relatives, questions looms large whether Jayalalithaa’s assets, properties, bank accounts, fixed deposits etc would be attached?

The judgement says that “Section 4 contemplates ad interim attachment by the jurisdictional District Judge, in the eventualities as mentioned therein and while doing so, he is required to issue to the person whose money or other property was being attached, a notice accompanied by copies of the order, the application and affidavits and of the evidence, if recorded, asking him to show cause on a date to be specified in the notice as to why the order of attachment should not be made absolute.”

However, now that Jayalithaaa is no more, the fate of properties owned by her and the issue of paying the fine on her behalf assume added significance. Who will be issued notices for the attachment of her properties and other moveable and immoveable assets?

R Kannan, a Chennai-based lawyer, said that the blood relatives of the deceased could be issued the same or they themselves could come forward to pay the fine and in that case the assets, both moveable and immoveable, should be transferred to their name.

In this case, the Veda Nilayam, famously known as the “Poes Garden” (residence of Jayalalithaa now occupied by Sasikala and her relatives) cannot be converted into a “Government memorial” as is being promised by the caretaker chief minister O Panneerselvam.

Another lawyer, Krishnaswamy says that “for the crime of a father the son cannot be prosecuted and vice-versa. So none now, not even Jayalalithaa’s legal heirs or who are claiming to be so, need to come forward to own up the responsibility”.

This anomaly would now come to sharp focus. However, according to other legal experts, without waiting for all these, the court could attach all or any property, both moveable and immoveable, equivalent to the alleged amassment of the wealth disproportionate to the known source of income. According to the judgment, the following are the properties/firms/companies acquired by the accused and listed in Annexure I (pages 138-141):

The judgment also says that the properties acquired by accused No. 2 (read Sasikala) prior to the check period of the case “not taken into account”.

The criminal law amendment act was enforced with effect from 23.8.1944 and is in of the exercise of powers under Section 72 of the Government of India Act, 1935 and is directed to prevent the disposal or concealment of property procured by means of the offences.