The Karnataka High Court on Monday dismissed an appeal by the legal heirs of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa, seeking the release of properties confiscated in connection with the disproportionate assets (DA) case filed against her in 2004.
Justice V Srishananda rejected the plea filed by J Deepak and J Deepa, observing that the confiscation order issued by the trial court remains valid as upheld by the Supreme Court.
The appellants contended that Jayalalithaa’s conviction by the trial court was overturned by the High Court and subsequently abated following her demise in December 2016. They argued that she should not be considered a convict, and her confiscated properties should be returned to her legal heirs.
Additionally, they claimed that certain assets seized by the authorities predated the check period and were not linked to the DA case.
The prosecution argued that the Supreme Court’s judgment explicitly upheld the trial court’s confiscation order, directing compliance by all concerned parties, including Jayalalithaa’s legal representatives.
Justice Srishananda noted that the trial court’s dismissal of the appellants’ application under Section 452 of the CrPC was based on merits rather than a question of locus. The bench cited the Supreme Court’s ruling, which deemed the confiscation final and binding.
The court held that there was insufficient evidence provided by the appellants to distinguish assets acquired before the check period from those seized during the investigation. It also clarified that the trial court would consider any fresh evidence presented by the appellants regarding the origin of the confiscated assets.
In an oral observation, the judge suggested that the appellants establish a charitable foundation in Jayalalithaa’s name to benefit the underprivileged. The court remarked, “Serve the poor; not only will you find satisfaction, but it will also bring peace to the departed soul.”
The appeal was dismissed as lacking merit, with the court affirming the confiscation order.
Advocates Dr M Sathya Kumar, Uday, and S Sathish Kumar represented the appellants, while Senior Advocate Sandesh J Chouta, assisted by Advocate Kiran S Javali, appeared for the respondents.
