Either I am stupid or the Supreme Court is stupid. The Supreme Court cannot be stupid. Therefore, I must be stupid. My stupidity prevents me from understanding Justice Rajendra Babu's verdict on the TANSI case involving Tamil Nadu chief minister J. Jayalalitha.
After 14 long months, the court delivered its verdict. Jayalalitha was innocent of violating Section 169 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) because she did not violate the law but a voluntary code of conduct. That's fine. But the court frowned upon her violation of the code and said "she must atone for the same by answering her conscience 'and returning the property to TANSI unconditionally'."
Jayalalitha had already returned the property. But suppose she had refused to do so. Could the court have made her comply? If no, the court's advice was gratuitous. If yes, the court has administered punishment. If Jayalalitha was punished, she is guilty. If she is innocent, can judges administer punishment to those violating a moral code and not the law? Is morality the domain of law courts or of priests?
There was also the charge of conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC. The judge did not rule out the assumption that government officials could have been "circumspect in their attitude" and "put the seal to such acts either tacitly or overzealously" because Jayalalitha was interested in purchasing the property.
The judge said there was overwhelming evidence to record that "Jayalalitha had signed the documents". He added, "In her anxiety to save her skin, she went to any length even to deny her signature on documents which even her auditor and other government officials identified." Justice Babu explained Jayalalitha's lies by saying, "Maybe Jayalalitha might have tried to be unduly cautious without fully understanding the implications in the law." That is why there was no conspiracy.
To recapitulate: Jayalalitha violated the code of conduct for ministers formulated by the government. The code prevents any minister from buying government property. Justice Babu denied the prosecution's contention that the code was "a binding rule of action". But the judge himself ordered Jayalalitha to return the TANSI property for violating this code. The judge did not rule out that the officials might have been "overzealous", knowing that Jayalalitha was making the purchase. The judge affirmed that Jayalalitha lied by denying she had signed the relevant documents. Yet, the judge saw no conspiracy. Conspiracy, like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder. The wise see only beauty. The stupid see only conspiracy.
