When Justice Kumarasamy announced the verdict of an 18 year long Disproportionate Asset case, it’s a huge relief and landmark in Jayalalithaa’s Political career. She might even describe the verdict as her best victory against any odds to date. But is the verdict really a victory for Honesty and Trustworthiness the people have on Indian Judiciary? It will be a big no.
I am not here to criticize any judgement, but just going to analyze the verdict pronounced. All excerpts will be from the Judgement copy available and made public.
The 10% Path
- “It can be stated without any fear of contradiction that corruption is not to be judged by degree, for corruption mothers disorder, destroys societal will to progress, accelerates undeserved ambitions, kills the conscience, jettisons the glory of the institutions, paralyses the economic health of a country, corrodes the sense of civility and mars the marrows of governance.”
- This is what the Supreme Court of India has statement in its Judgement in the corruption case of Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal in the year 2013.
- Krishnanand Agnihotri, an Income Tax officer during the period 1949-1962 was charged with Disproportionate Asset and corruption case. In the year 1976, the Supreme Court of India acquitted him stating the excess asset when compared to the declared earnings is comparatively small (Less than 10%).
- But before looking at the 10% we need to look at the values.
- His total declared annual Income was Rs. 1,27,715.43 and his total assets worth to that date was Rs. 55,732.25.
- Court stated clearly that there is possibility of ups and downs on daily accounting of the central government employee and considering the amount of assets to be less and negligible he is acquitted.
Jayalalithaa’s verdict is based on this Krishnanand Agnihotri verdict. But where is Rs. 55,000 and where Crores that’s being declared in this case is.
The Andhra Formula
- Judge Kumarasamy Judgement states an example of Andhra Pradesh Government Circular. The circular states that Andhra Pradesh Government employees can hold wealth beyond upto 10 to 20% of their earnings.
- For Kumarasamy to use this circular as an example, this circular should have been by Tamil Nadu government, or by Karnataka Government where the case is held or at least by the Central Government.
- Tomorrow the new government can increase of decrease this value in their circulars. In that case why do we need Anti-Corruption Department?
- Judge Kumarasamy failed to understand that Circulars and Government Laws and Acts are different altogether.
- A law is framed by Legislation. If individual state governments issue circulars against a law and that is being used by Judiciary for their judgements why do we need those spineless laws?
Gifts and Recommendations
- Judge Kumarasamy has stated gifts given to leaders in TamilNadu is a customary affair. With this reason he has considered all the gifts and recommendations received by Jayalalithaa & Co as their declared income.
- My question is will the court accept all customary practices as correct and use and give that as a verdict.
- Jallikattu is a customary practice in TamilNadu
- Multiple marriages by a person is a custom in early days
- Child marriages are a customary practice in India
- Dowry is a customary practice in India
- Can the IAS and IPS officers receive Cars and Diamonds as gifts and give the same reason and make an escape?
- It is a law that a government servant should return the gifts and recommendations received during his tenure to the government treasury. Guess Judge Kumarasamy skipped that page during his studies and practice.
Bride’s Family and the Dowry
- Judge Kumarasamy has again taken the Custom scale in his verdict.
- He has stated that in TamilNadu it’s a customary practice for Bride’s family to conduct and spend for the marriage. And he has rejected all the amount in that expense even without considering the proof and witness statements.
- If that’s the case, every state or even every village has their own marriage rituals. Can the Judiciary recommend Indian Legislation to frame individual laws for individual tribes?
Loans are Income
- Judge Kumarasamy has considered all loans taken by Jayalalithaa & Co as their loans.
- Even in this he has failed to consider the Actual loan amount received. He has just considered the sanctioned amount.
- Considering this, if Suppose I take a 50L Home loan. Will the home loan be added up to my income? Then what about the house which I bought? Meaning my income calculation is doubled?
- Considering this, if Suppose I take a 5L Personal loan. When this PL is added to my income, what about the Tax about supposed to pay? Does that increase?
- What about the Interest I pay on these loans? My expense. This is totally a reverse of actual financial procedures followed till date. I firmly believe Judge Kumarasamy is not a finance graduate.
- Judge has also not considered the fact of to what purpose the loan amount is being used. Will I be able to take a business loan, not do any business, but repay the loan with interest after six months? What exactly am I doing with that money? How am I supposed to declare it to the Income Tax? No answer what so ever in the judgement.
- Judge Kumarasamy has stated this case to be the one of political vendetta.
- We can agree Kalaignar Karunanidhi and Anbhazhagan are front runners in making this case possible. But not to forget it was first filed by Subramanian Swamy. Also who else could file a case then? Only DMK was in power that time and only they are supposed to do it.
- This judgement could set a bad example. Meaning even ADMK cannot file a case against DMK cadres during their rule. That too would be considered as political vendetta.
- Supreme Court has clearly stated on 18.11.2003 that opposition parties need to act as watch dogs and should keep a check on unlawful activities of the ruling party. That was what being done by DMK in this case.
Bar Council has warned every Indian citizen that they will file a case if there is any talk against Kumarasamy Judgement. Thanks to their sincere effort to save justice. This post / article is mainly an analysis of the judgement as what would any other lawyers or citizen would do. If they feel this to be offensive they sure can file a case, provided if those bar council members are ready to face the counter case be filed upon them for their comments against Kunha Judgement. Thanks to internet and social media proofs are available abundant.