English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

SC asks woman claiming to be Jayalalithaa’s daughter to move Karnataka HC

Published

on

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Amrutha Sarathy, brought up as the daughter of the late AIADMK chief’s estranged sister, claims a DNA test will prove Jayalalithaa was her real mother

The continuing war within the AIADMK and among close aides of J Jayalalithaa to claim the deceased leader’s legacy got a fresh twist on Monday as a woman – 37-year-old Amrutha Sarathy – moved the Supreme Court seeking a DNA test which she claimed would prove that she is the biological daughter of the former Tamil Nadu chief minister.

While the Supreme Court Bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta dismissed the writ petition moved by Amrutha through her counsel, senior advocate Indira Jaisingh, on the grounds that it was not maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution, the new twist in the ever-evolving AIADMK political potboiler is clearly one that will be keenly monitored.

The disappointment in the Supreme Court is not likely to dissuade Amrutha, who was brought up as the daughter of Jayalalithaa’s estranged younger sister Shylaja, from pressing for a DNA test to establish that the deceased Tamil icon was her real mother.

Amrutha has been told by the apex court that she can approach the Karnataka High Court with her demand.

Since Jayalalithaa’s ‘mysterious’ death at Chennai’s Apollo Hospital last year, there has been a constant war between political leaders and her close-confidante, the jailed VK Sasikala, for claiming the former chief minister’s legacy.

While it seemed the patch-up between Jayalalithaa’s political aides – Tamil Nadu chief minister Edappadi Palaniswamy and his deputy O Panneerselvam – and their recent victory against VK Sasikala in the quest to get rights to the AIADMK’s ‘two-leaves’ election symbol, was the beginning of an end to the legacy-war, Amrutha’s claim now adds a new twist to the saga.

Interestingly, Amrutha’s aunts – LS Lalitha and Ranjani Ravindranath – both cousins of Jayalalithaa, are co-petitioners in the case that the 37-year-old had filed. Lalithaa and Ranjani had sought the apex court’s intervention to help Amrutha prove her relationship with Jayalalithaa, which they claim was thwarted by AIADMK leader Sasikala.

Amrutha’s story is fascinating, one that could easily pass off as a spicy movie script in Bollywood, or even the Tamil film industry of which Jayalalithaa was a reigning queen before her plunge into politics.

Amrutha has claimed that she was born on August 14, 1980, at Jayalalithaa’s residence in the Mylapore neighbourhood of Chennai but the birth was kept a secret to avoid social stigma and “uphold the dignity of the family as they belonged to a very religious, orthodox and cultured Brahmin family”.

Jayalalithaa, at least as per known official records, had never married and Amrutha’s petition didn’t expressly mention who she believes her biological father was. However, in her petition before the SC, Amrutha claimed that she was adopted by Jayalalithaa’s elder sister, Shylaja, at birth. Shylaja died in 2015 while her husband, Sarathy, died in March this year. Amrutha’s petition claims that on his deathbed, Sarathy confessed that he was in a relationship with Jayalalithaa.

“It was upon the death of Late Ms. J. Jayalalitha that Amrutha came to know through close family relatives – LS Lalitha and Ranjani Ravindranath – that she is in fact the biological daughter of Late Ms. J. Jayalalitha and thus, to ascertain the same, the Petitioners herein are seeking remedy under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for a declaration of the same through an identifiable method to know the maternity i.e., through deoxyribonucleic acid test (hereinafter referred to as DNA Test) which is to be undertaken by any institute of national repute to ascertain and establish the maternity of the Petitioner No.1 (Amrutha),” states the petition.

As per official records, Jayalalithaa is known to have only one sibling, a brother – the late Jayakumar. Curiously, Jayakumar’s daughter Deepa Jayakumar, has refuted the claims being made by Amrutha while other close aides of Jayalalithaa have on earlier occasions asserted that she had no other sibling.

Detailing the circumstances of her birth in her petition, Amrutha says: “It was decided amongst the family members that the birth and adoption of the Petitioner No.1 will be kept as a secret and therefore all of them, viz., Late Mrs. Jayalakshmi, Late Ms. J. Jayalalitha, Late Mrs. Shylaja and her husband Late Mr. Sararthy took a promise in front of God and amongst themselves that they will not disclose the true facts and circumstances of birth of the Petitioner No. 1.”

However, Amrutha goes on to say in her petition that that she had visited Jayalalithaa on several occasions during her lifetime and that the AIADMK chief would always treat her with “motherly affection” and had even had her enrolled as a member of the AIADMK.

Things, according to Amrutha, seem to have taken a sudden turn for the worse when Jayalalithaa was hospitalized last year at Apollo Hospital. During the over 70-day hospitalized, which eventually ended with Jayalalithaa’s demise, Amrutha claims she often tried to meet her ‘mother’ but that she was chased away by the security on Sasikala’s instructions. She also alleges that she was obstructed from paying her last respects to Jayalalithaa at the Rajaji Hall.

The mystery around Amrutha’s ‘foster’ mother Shylaja:

In an interview to Junior Vikatan in 2014, Shylaja claimed that she is the third sibling born to Sandhya and Jayaram, with Jayalalithaa being the eldest and Jayakumar the middle child. “I was a three-month-old foetus when my father died. My mother entered films and gave me to art director Damodar Pillai’s son, who raised me,” Shylaja told JV.

According to Shylaja, she lived in Ramanathapuram till the age of five. In the interview to Junior Vikatan, Shylaja had also claimed that Jayalalithaa’s mother, Sandhya, used to meet her twice or thrice a week. “She used to take me out to buy chocolate. She used to make me wear gold and feel happy. She once took me to JC road Shivaji theatre to watch my akka’s (elder sister Jayalalithaa) film.”

However, when quizzed on whether she had any document to prove her story, Shylaja had replied in the negative. She said she had a photograph with her mother Sandhya but it was “somehow lost”. Like Amrutha is doing now, Shylaja had then claimed: “If you take my DNA test you will know (that I am Jayalalithaa’s sister)… When I was 16 years old, my adopted father took me to the Kannada superstar Rajkumar uncle. As soon as he saw me, Rajkumar asked Damodaran, ‘Is this Sandhya’s daughter?’ To that, my father said yes.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

Om Birla likely to move motion to revoke suspension of 8 opposition MPs today

The Lok Sabha is likely to revoke the suspension of eight opposition MPs today, with a motion expected to be moved by the government following consensus on maintaining discipline.

Published

on

Om Birla

The suspension of eight opposition Members of Parliament in the Lok Sabha is expected to be revoked on Tuesday, with Speaker Om Birla likely to initiate the process, according to sources.

The MPs, including seven from the Congress and one from the CPI(M), were suspended on February 3 for unruly conduct during the first phase of the Budget session after a resolution was adopted by the House.

Motion to be moved in Lok Sabha

Congress leader K Suresh said that Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju is expected to move a motion around noon seeking revocation of the suspensions.

Although the suspension was initially imposed for the entire session, scheduled to conclude on April 2, opposition parties have consistently demanded reconsideration since the second phase of the session began on March 9.

Agreement on maintaining decorum

At a recent meeting convened by the Speaker, both ruling and opposition sides reportedly agreed on maintaining discipline in the House.

Key understandings include:

  • No member will enter the well of the House to protest
  • Papers will not be torn or thrown toward the Chair
  • MPs will not climb onto officials’ tables

The Lok Sabha Secretariat has also reminded members to keep areas within the Parliament premises obstruction-free to ensure smooth movement.

Speaker raises concern over conduct

Earlier, Om Birla had expressed concern over the use of banners, placards, and inappropriate language by some MPs. In a letter to party leaders, he stressed the need to uphold the dignity and traditions of parliamentary democracy.

He had also indicated that actions like suspension are taken in cases of serious misconduct, such as climbing onto tables during proceedings.

Suspended MPs

The suspended MPs include Gurjeet Singh Aujla, Hibi Eden, C Kiran Kumar Reddy, Amarinder Singh Raja Warring, Manickam Tagore, Prashant Padole, Dean Kuriakose (Congress), and S Venkatesan (CPI-M).

Continue Reading

India News

Maharashtra passes freedom of religion bill with jail term up to 10 years

Maharashtra passes anti-conversion bill with strict jail terms and fines, aiming to curb unlawful religious conversions.

Published

on

Maharashtra faces freedom of bill

The Maharashtra Assembly has passed the Freedom of Religion Bill 2026, introducing stringent penalties to curb religious conversions carried out through coercion, fraud, inducement or marriage.

The bill was cleared by voice vote late Monday, with the government asserting that it aims to protect individuals from unlawful conversions while safeguarding constitutional rights.

Under the provisions, individuals found guilty of conversion through marriage or deceit can face up to seven years in prison along with a fine of Rs 1 lakh. In cases involving minors, women, persons of unsound mind, or those belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the punishment increases to seven years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5 lakh.

Mass conversions will also attract a jail term of up to seven years and a fine of Rs 5 lakh. Repeat offenders could face imprisonment of up to 10 years.

Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis said the law is not aimed at any particular religion but seeks to prevent conversions through illegal means. He emphasised that the right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution does not include conversion through coercion or fraud.

He also noted that several states, including Odisha, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Karnataka and Jharkhand, have enacted similar laws.

The bill allows complaints to be filed by the affected individual or close relatives, while police can also initiate action in certain situations. The government said this provision is necessary as victims may not always be in a position to approach authorities.

Minister of State for Home Pankaj Bhoyar said the legislation ensures that conversions take place voluntarily and transparently. He addressed concerns over the requirement of giving a 60-day prior notice to the district magistrate, stating that the provision is meant to verify free consent.

The law also mandates informing authorities within 21 days after conversion, failing which it may be treated as invalid. The government described this as a measure for administrative record-keeping and to avoid disputes.

During the debate, members from the opposition raised concerns over possible misuse and vigilantism. Congress MLA Aslam Shaikh argued that the bill could affect constitutional rights, including privacy and equality. Some legislators also demanded that the bill be sent to a joint select committee for further scrutiny.

However, the opposition Shiv Sena (UBT) extended support. MLA Bhaskar Jadhav said the bill does not target any religion and is aimed at preventing unethical practices.

The government maintained that the law does not restrict an individual’s right to change religion voluntarily but is intended to curb unlawful practices and maintain law and order.

Continue Reading

India News

Mamata Banerjee writes to poll chief over officers’ reshuffle, calls move arbitrary

Mamata Banerjee has written to the Chief Election Commissioner, calling the reshuffle of senior Bengal officials arbitrary and raising concerns over constitutional norms.

Published

on

mamta banerjee

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has written to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, raising strong objections to the recent reshuffle of senior bureaucrats in the state ahead of the assembly elections.

In her letter, Banerjee described the move by the Election Commission of India as “arbitrary” and expressed “deep concern” over what she termed a unilateral decision. She urged the Commission to refrain from adopting such measures in the future.

The Chief Minister pointed out that while the Election Commission does have the authority to make administrative changes during elections, past practice has involved consultation with the state government. According to her, the Commission would typically seek a panel of officers from the state and make its selections from that list, maintaining what she called constitutional propriety and administrative convention.

Banerjee warned that bypassing this process could undermine the institutional credibility and long-standing legacy of the poll body, and may also affect the foundational principles of the constitutional framework.

The controversy stems from the Commission’s decision, taken soon after announcing election dates, to remove several top officials from election-related duties. These include the state’s Chief Secretary, Director General of Police, Kolkata Police Commissioner, and Home Secretary.

The Commission has maintained that the reshuffle was aimed at ensuring a peaceful and violence-free electoral process.

Reacting sharply, Banerjee alleged bias in the decision-making, claiming that the removal of the Chief Secretary indicated an anti-women stance. She also accused the Commission of selectively targeting officers, suggesting that the move favoured individuals aligned with the Bharatiya Janata Party.

Meanwhile, the Trinamool Congress escalated its protest, staging a day-long walkout from the Rajya Sabha earlier in the day.

Responding to the criticism, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the Election Commission is a constitutional authority, adding that questioning its decisions in Parliament is inappropriate and unproductive.

The Commission has appointed a new Chief Secretary in place of the outgoing official as part of the reshuffle.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com