Allegations of oppressive style of governance

Her detractors consider her style of Governance oppressive. The following incidents are a few which are popularly held against her, to justify such claims.

1. In 2003, teachers of government-run educational institutions and employees of the state government declared an indefinite strike, demanding the repeal of an act that reduced their pension benefits. Jayalalithaa’s government adopted a defiant stance [maintaining that the reduction was necessary to strengthen the fiscal position of the government]. A hurriedly enacted legislation enabled her to declare the strike illegal as it prevented the “maintenance of essential services” and terminate the services of the striking employees, numbering around 170,000. There were widespread allegations of hyperaction and witch-hunt, with the police being pressed into action to target striking individuals, sometimes to the extent of storming their residences and arresting them on flimsy grounds. The High Court and the Supreme Court of India, responding to appeals, ruled the government action legitimate but ordered the constitution of a three member Committee of High Court Judges to consider the appeals of the employees on an individual basis. The committee, deliberating over a period of six months, ordered the reinstatement of all but a little less than 4,000 employees, and recommended minor punishment to around 6,000 employees. Later, after her party suffered, Jayalalithaa reversed the decisions and reinstated all the dismissed employees and withdrew the penalties imposed, despite the Committee of Judges’ findings. This is widely believed to be in response to her defeat in the national elections in May, 2004.
2. Allegations have been raised over the veracity of claims in various criminal proceedings filed during her Chief Ministership against her detractors, including her estranged son V. N. Sudhakaran, accusing them of possessing narcotics.
3. In 1992, Chandralekha, an IAS officer and the chairperson of state owned Industrial Development Corporation was brutally assaulted on the roads of Chennai, and acid thrown at her face. It has been alleged that this was due to her refusal to toe Jayalalithaa’s line in the affair of disinvestment in SPIC, a joint sector company. An arrested suspect in this case, Surla, alleged that he did it under instructions from Jayalalithaa and her close aide Sasikala Natarajan.
4. On 30 May 1995, R. Shanmugha Sundaram, an advocate belonging to DMK, Jayalithaa’s rival party was grievously injured in an attack with deadly weapons by a gang of goons led by notorious rowdy Welding Kumar at his house. Around this time, Shanmugha Sundaram was preparing a petition to be filed in the high court, on behalf of another DMK advocate Alandur Bharathi, against the purchase of TANSI land by Jayalalithaa and Sasikala. The prime land in Guindy in Chennai was purchased by Jaya Publications in which Ms Jayalalitha and Mrs Natarajan were partners. The incident happened during Jayalalitha’s tenure as Chief Minister from 1991-1996. Allegations have been levelled against Jayalalithaa for a direct involvement in instigating the attack.
5. She has constantly been at the heart of controversy over the numerous defamation suits filed against opposition leaders and members of the press, using privileges available to her in the official capacity and by using government funds. She has been accused of being highly intolerant to negative criticism.
6. The action against Jayendra Saraswathi during her Chief-ministership, has been condemned in some quarters as being hyperactive and invited condemnation from the Supreme Court of India.
7. Action initiated against the then opposition leader and the current Chief Minister, M. Karunanidhi and union ministers Murasoli Maran and T.R.Baalu all belonging to DMK, in 2004 for the Flyover scam case. The arrests were widely believed to be motivated by political vendetta and made over flimsy grounds. The arrests were captured by video journalists attached to Sun TV, a popular Tamil television channel sympathetic to DMK, and were telecasted to a wide audience. Footage from the coverage indicated manhandling of the leaders, and this led to widespread criticism of the action.
8. Her hate against the media is well known as orders were given to arrest the editors of The Hindu, a leading newspaper based in Chennai, for publishing an editorial entitled ‘Rising Intolerance’ that criticized her “crude use of state power”. They were not arrested later as the orders were cancelled by the privileges committee. The editor of “Murasoli” – which reprinted the piece – was also arrested and sentenced to 15 days in prison.

Corruption charges

She has been accused and charged with corruption charges in several cases. Investigation by authorities into her financial affairs have allegedly revealed wealth which is disproportionate to her known income sources. The litigation filed in this case is still under judicial review. Since she returned to governance before the investigations could be completed, the Supreme Court of India transferred the disproportionate wealth case from Tamilnadu to Bangalore Court in neighbouring Karnataka state observing that public confidence in the fairness of trial was being seriously undermined and great prejudice appeared to have been caused to the prosecution which could culminate in miscarriage of justice.

When her conviction in the TANSI case was overruled in 2003, citing lack of evidence, the Supreme Court of India observed that Jayalalithaa should “atone” by “answering her conscience” and also asked her to return the land to the organization. She returned the land purchased by questionable means in 2003.

Allegations of extravagant lifestyle

Jayalalithaa’s detractors draw attention to the 1995 wedding of her adopted son as an example of her extravagant show of wealth. Guinness Book of Records records the ensuing wedding banquet as the largest ever. TIME magazine, and many other newspapers in India observed that the ceremony was “a vulgar display of wealth”. Her huge collection of clothes and apparels, discovered during a search operation at her residence, soon after she fell from power in 1996, has been compared with that of Imelda Marcos, the former first lady of the Philippines. Media evidence showed vast quantities of footwear and empty suitcases in her possession. She is also alleged to have purchased or built many houses during her first regime between 1991 and 1996.

The disproportionate assets investigation revealed a huge jewellery collection, which became the subject of income tax scrutiny as she was suspected of tax evasion and money laundering. Interestingly, she is regarded as one of the wealthiest politicians in India, despite drawing a salary of Re. 1

• Muthu. M.G.Ramachandran’s driver.
• Sundaresa Iyer. Manager of Sankara Mutt. He quit well paid senior position in Reserve bank and joined sankara mutt. Police alleged him of aiding a person to buy ganja when he was in jail. Still chargesheet was not filed by police.