In a landmark decision, the Karnataka High Court upheld the confiscation of the assets of late Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa, rejecting an appeal filed by her legal heirs, J Deepak and J Deepa.
The appeal sought the release of properties seized in a 2004 disproportionate assets case.
Jayalalithaa was convicted by a special court in 2014 for amassing wealth beyond her known sources of income during her tenure as Chief Minister from 1991 to 1996. Following her conviction, authorities seized her assets. Although the Karnataka High Court acquitted her in 2015, the then Congress-led Karnataka government escalated the matter to the Supreme Court.
While the Supreme Court absolved her due to her demise in 2016, it upheld the conviction of her aide V K Sasikala and Sasikala’s relatives, V N Sudhakaran and Elavarasi, in 2017, and maintained the order for asset confiscation.
In 2020, the Madras High Court recognized J Deepak and J Deepa as Jayalalithaa’s legal heirs. They subsequently appealed against the confiscation, contending that Jayalalithaa could not be posthumously deemed a convict, as legal proceedings against her ended with her death. Therefore, they argued, her properties should be returned to them.
However, Justice V Srishananda upheld the trial court’s decision from July 12, 2023, affirming that the confiscation order issued by the Supreme Court remained valid. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lay on the appellants to establish which assets were legally acquired before the period of alleged corruption.
During the hearing, the court highlighted the absence of detailed evidence differentiating legally obtained assets from those allegedly acquired through illicit means. It noted that any claims regarding legitimate ownership of assets must be backed by credible documentation and presented before the trial court.
This ruling has significant implications for similar cases involving the posthumous legal status of individuals and the rights of legal heirs in matters of asset confiscation. The court’s stance underscores the principle that the confiscation of assets linked to corruption remains valid unless compelling evidence proves otherwise.
Legal experts view the judgment as a reinforcement of anti-corruption measures and a precedent for handling cases involving high-profile individuals.
Read More: BJP Is Distributing Cash, Gold Yet No FIR Filed Against Them: Arvind Kejriwal Calls To Vote Wisely
