K’taka High Court Upholds Confiscation Of Jayalalithaa’s Assets

In a pivotal legal determination, the Karnataka High Court reaffirmed the confiscation of assets belonging to the late Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa, dismissing an appeal filed by her legal heirs, J. Deepak and J. Deepa.

The heirs sought the restitution of properties seized in a 2004 case concerning disproportionate assets, asserting that the confiscation was no longer tenable following her demise.

Jayalalithaa was initially convicted by a special court in 2014 for accumulating wealth beyond her officially declared income during her tenure as Chief Minister between 1991 and 1996. As a consequence of the conviction, her properties were seized by the authorities. Although the Karnataka High Court acquitted her in 2015, the state government, then led by the Congress party, escalated the case to the Supreme Court.

In its 2017 judgment, while absolving Jayalalithaa posthumously due to her passing in 2016, the apex court upheld the conviction of her close associate V.K. Sasikala and Sasikala’s relatives, V.N. Sudhakaran and Elavarasi, maintaining the directive for asset confiscation.

Following Jayalalithaa’s death, the Madras High Court, in 2020, formally recognized J. Deepak and J. Deepa as her lawful heirs. They subsequently pursued legal recourse, contending that since the criminal proceedings against Jayalalithaa were extinguished upon her death, she could no longer be considered a convict, and thus, her properties should revert to her heirs.

Despite these arguments, Justice V. Srishananda upheld the trial court’s July 12, 2023 order, reiterating that the Supreme Court’s confiscation mandate remained binding.

The High Court underscored the appellants’ failure to furnish conclusive evidence delineating legally acquired assets from those allegedly obtained through corrupt practices. It emphasized that any claims regarding legitimate ownership of specific assets necessitate substantiation through credible evidence, which must be presented before the trial court.

This judgment carries profound implications for jurisprudence related to posthumous legal culpability and the inheritance rights of heirs in cases involving asset forfeiture due to corruption. By affirming the continued validity of the confiscation order, the court underscored the principle that illicitly acquired wealth remains subject to state appropriation, irrespective of the individual’s demise.

Legal scholars have lauded the ruling as a robust reinforcement of anti-corruption frameworks and a significant precedent for adjudicating high-profile corruption cases.

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International