The Special Court in Bangalore has delivered an astounding verdict against Jayalalithaa and her associates today. She is imprisoned for four years and fined Rs.100 crore. She pays the penalty for her brazen act of amassing Rs.66.65 crore, an amount totally disproportionate to her disclosed sources of income during her first stint as Tamil Nadu Chief Minister (1991 - 96).
The judge needs to be applauded for his boldness and , maybe, incorruptibility. There have inevitably been rumours that attempts were made to 'tame' him.
It is difficult to explain how a smart person like Jayalalithaa indulged in easily provable venality whereas the apparently less smart politicians in Tamil Nadu make hay without getting caught. It is possible that initial taste of power made her recklessly confident. In her subsequent stints as Chief Minister she must have become more careful, though not necessarily less corrupt.
Updated on 2nd Oct. :
Media reports point towards some possible chinks in the judgement's armour. According to a Supreme Court judgement, conviction and sentencing need to be spaced out in time and generally should not be in the same day to enable the judge to understand the arguments of prosecution and the defense regarding quantum of sentence. Has the learned judge erred in rushing to pronounce the sentence? Did he have a closed mind ? ( A closed mind need not necessarily come to a wrong conclusion. But it is anathema to legal pundits.) Was he inadvertently conflating legality and ethicality?
The judge needs to be applauded for his boldness and , maybe, incorruptibility. There have inevitably been rumours that attempts were made to 'tame' him.
It is difficult to explain how a smart person like Jayalalithaa indulged in easily provable venality whereas the apparently less smart politicians in Tamil Nadu make hay without getting caught. It is possible that initial taste of power made her recklessly confident. In her subsequent stints as Chief Minister she must have become more careful, though not necessarily less corrupt.
Updated on 2nd Oct. :
Media reports point towards some possible chinks in the judgement's armour. According to a Supreme Court judgement, conviction and sentencing need to be spaced out in time and generally should not be in the same day to enable the judge to understand the arguments of prosecution and the defense regarding quantum of sentence. Has the learned judge erred in rushing to pronounce the sentence? Did he have a closed mind ? ( A closed mind need not necessarily come to a wrong conclusion. But it is anathema to legal pundits.) Was he inadvertently conflating legality and ethicality?
1 comment:
It is really a sad event... that Mandolin Srinivas lost his life at this young age to , perhaps some simple curable ailment.....
Post a Comment