Today in the Supreme Court, senior BJP leader and the original complainant in the J Jayalalithaa disproportionate assets case, Subramaniam Swamy, stated that the Karnataka High Court order acquitting her was erroneous. He pointed out to the Bench comprising Justices P C Ghose and Amitava Roy that there was grave miscarriage of justice that had been committed by the Karnataka High Court while acquitting her.
Swamy who argued for around an hour also brought to the notice of the Supreme Court that the High Court had not considered the objections that were filed by either Karnataka or him when the appeal by her was being heard. Swamy further also pointed out to the mathematical errors that were committed by the High Court as a result of which Jayalalithaa got the benefit of an acquittal.
It may be recalled that when Jayalalithaa was acquitted by the High Court, Swamy had Swamy had said on his twitter account that the verdict was a tragedy of arithmetic errors. Following the complaint by Swamy in 1996, the DMK government too had filed cases against her. The DMK is represented in the court by its senior leader Anbazhagan.
Earlier during the day, special public prosecutor for Karnataka, B V Acharya concluded his arguments in the case. He also submitted written arguments with regard to the bank transactions involving Jayalalithaa and others. This was submitted with a view of demonstrating how money part of the disproportionate income had been transferred.
Later, the court also heard submissions made by DMK leader, Anbazhagan. Represented by his advocate, Andhi Arjuna, he too reiterated the same point that the High Court had not considered the the views put-forth by him or Karnataka. Anzabhagan who is an intervenor in this case said that the law is very clear that the phrase "known sources of income" in Section 13(1)(e) [old Section 5(1)(e)] has clearly the emphasis on the word "income". The income would be what is attached to his office or post, commonly known as remuneration or salary. Whatever return he gets from his service, will be the primary item of his income. Other incomes which conceivably are income qua the public servant, will be in the regular receipt from (a) his property, or (b) his investment.
A receipt from windfall, or gains of graft, crime or immoral secretions by persons prima facie would not be receipt from the "known sources of income" of a public servant. Through the deposition of witnesses, both prosecution and defence it has been established beyond all reasonable doubt that the properties acquired by the accused persons were disproportionate to their known sources of income and they have failed to satisfactorily account for their possession.