India News

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

Published

9 years ago

November 27, 2017

[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]

Up Next

Jignesh Mevani to contest Gujarat polls as independent candidate from Vadgam

Don't Miss

Mann Ki Baat: PM salutes 26/11 Mumbai martyrs

India News

Veeramani POCSO case: Vijay questions Stalin over earlier probe

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay has questioned MK Stalin over the handling of the Veeramani POCSO case, while Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected anyone.

Published

3 hours ago

September 25, 2026

APNLive Desk

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) president C Joseph Vijay has questioned DMK president MK Stalin over the handling of the POCSO case involving Gem Granites founder R Veeramani. The political exchange follows renewed investigation into allegations involving minor girls.

Vijay’s remarks came as the ruling TVK stepped up its questions about how the case was handled during the previous DMK government. The party’s IT wing has alleged that the earlier investigation was weakened and questioned why a final report was filed.

The allegations have been rejected by the DMK. Stalin has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to protect anyone in the case and has called the allegations false and defamatory.

What did Vijay say about the Veeramani case?

Vijay questioned Stalin over the handling of the case and demanded an explanation from the former chief minister.

The TVK has specifically questioned why action was not taken against Veeramani during the previous administration and why the earlier investigation resulted in a closure report.

The party has also raised questions about the role of officials involved in the earlier investigation. These are political allegations made by the TVK and have not been established as facts.

What is the Veeramani POCSO case?

The case concerns allegations of sexual abuse of minors involving R Veeramani, the founder of Gem Granites.

The case came under renewed scrutiny after a special POCSO court rejected an earlier closure report and ordered further investigation. The expanded probe has subsequently identified additional alleged survivors who were minors at the time of the alleged offences, according to current reporting.

The investigation is also examining the circumstances surrounding the earlier probe and whether there were any lapses in how the case was handled.

What has MK Stalin said?

Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected Veeramani.

He has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to shield anyone in the case. Stalin has also said that everyone responsible for the alleged offences, including anyone who aided or attempted to protect the accused, should face the law.

The DMK president has further said that the focus should remain on securing justice for the affected girls rather than making political allegations.

Why has the case become a political issue?

The Veeramani case has become the subject of a political dispute between the ruling TVK and the DMK over the handling of the earlier investigation.

The TVK is questioning the previous government’s handling of the case, while the DMK has denied that it intervened to protect the accused.

At this stage, claims about political interference or deliberate weakening of the earlier investigation should be treated as allegations unless established by the ongoing investigation or judicial proceedings.

India News

Women wrestlers challenge Brij Bhushan’s acquittal in sexual harassment case

Four women wrestlers have challenged the acquittal of former WFI chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh and co-accused Vinod Tomar in a sexual harassment case.

Published

4 hours ago

September 25, 2026

APNLive Desk

Four women wrestlers have approached a Delhi court challenging the acquittal of former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief and BJP leader Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh in a sexual harassment case.

The wrestlers have also challenged the acquittal of co-accused Vinod Tomar. The matter is scheduled to be heard by a Special Judge at the Rouse Avenue Courts.

The appeal challenges the order passed by an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on August 3, 2026, when Brij Bhushan and Tomar were acquitted in the case.

Wrestlers challenge court’s reasoning

In their appeal, the wrestlers have argued that the acquittal order is legally unsustainable and that the evidence was not assessed appropriately.

They have also alleged that the order relied on assumptions about how victims of sexual assault and harassment were expected to behave instead of assessing the evidence and circumstances of the complainants.

The challenge seeks judicial scrutiny of the findings that resulted in the acquittal of Brij Bhushan and Tomar.

Brij Bhushan was acquitted in August

The Rouse Avenue court acquitted Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh on August 3 in the sexual harassment case involving women wrestlers. The court’s decision followed consideration of the evidence and statements presented during the proceedings.

The case had emerged after several women wrestlers accused the former WFI chief of sexual harassment. The allegations had led to a major protest by wrestlers in 2023.

The latest appeal means the acquittal is now being challenged before a higher court.

India News

Congress protests against Gyanesh Kumar, demands Election chief’s resignation

Congress workers took to the streets against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, with protests and demonstrations held over the party’s allegations concerning the Election Commission.

Published

4 hours ago

September 25, 2026

APNLive Desk

Congress stepped up its campaign against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, with party workers taking to the streets and demanding his resignation amid the ongoing row over the Election Commission.

The protests followed repeated criticism by Congress leaders of the poll panel and its functioning. The party has alleged irregularities in the electoral process and has sought accountability from the Election Commission.

Congress leaders have also targeted Gyanesh Kumar personally, with Rahul Gandhi among those calling for the Chief Election Commissioner to step down.

Congress takes protest to streets

Congress workers staged demonstrations in different places as part of the party’s campaign against the Election Commission.

The protests featured sharp symbolism, including masks and handcuffs, as Congress sought to highlight its allegations against the poll panel and demand action against Gyanesh Kumar.

The demonstrations are part of a wider confrontation between the Congress and the Election Commission over issues related to electoral rolls and the conduct of elections.

Congress demands Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation

The Congress has repeatedly demanded the resignation of Gyanesh Kumar, accusing the Election Commission of failing to adequately address the concerns raised by the opposition party.

Rahul Gandhi has also stepped up his criticism of the poll panel. In a statement on Thursday, he demanded that Gyanesh Kumar resign and alleged that the Election Commission had acknowledged the issue of “vote theft”. These are allegations made by the Congress and should not be treated as an established finding unless confirmed by the relevant authority.

The dispute comes amid a broader political debate over electoral rolls, voter verification and the functioning of the Election Commission.

Election Commission under opposition scrutiny

The Congress has intensified its campaign against the poll body in recent weeks, with party leaders repeatedly questioning its decisions and procedures.

The Election Commission, meanwhile, has maintained that India’s electoral process is conducted according to the Constitution, electoral laws and prescribed procedures. Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has previously defended the integrity of the electoral system and rejected claims that electronic voting machines can be remotely hacked.

The latest protests add to the continuing political confrontation over the Election Commission and the opposition’s demands concerning the poll panel’s functioning.