The case for prosecuting Tamilnadu CM Jayalalitha for corrupt practice for her photo on free laptops

In Sep-11, the scheme was finalized to distribute a free laptop to lakhs of high school students in Tamilnadu, ostensibly to help with their education. The laptop configurations could have been better, used open source software and included a webcam to allow students to benefit from elearning(as pointed out in this Tehekla article http://www.tehelka.com/story_main50.asp?filename=Ws101011MICROSOFT.asp), but otherwise the scheme seemed to be have covered all bases. I was impressed to see a scheme benefiting students instead of distributing colour TVs/washing machines/radios etc. But when I saw the pictures of the first batch of laptops, then the diabolical genius of the scheme hit me. As evident from the photos of the laptop cover in the Mint article(http://www.livemint.com/2011/11/15003504/Distribution-firms-borrowing-o.html?d=1), each laptop has the photo of the CM herself! Even if the laptop life is 3yrs, the students(future voters of tomorrow) and their immediate families will constantly see that photo. This is more effective than any transient publicity like newspapers, TV, handbills..

Now, some may call me naive, or may dispute the efficacy of the scheme's publicity because

• Every ruling party releases full page advertisements with the party leader's photos, dwarfing the scheme/project for which the advertisement is released for..
• The CM is an iconic figure in the state, so what difference would it make if her photo is there in one more place?
• The initial impact will fade away after sometime. 
• People should be having sufficiently developed voting sense, not to vote for someone just because such a 'populist' scheme is made.

Whatever the case maybe, one cannot deny that she is benefiting from state funds to get her photo into the home of 7 lakh students and thousands of schools.  One would be outraged if school assemblies had the CM's photo prominently displayed, but this  photo display is as bad as that.

Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1987 on criminal misconduct by public servants states that (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,....- (d) if he,-..(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. Publicity and association of the government funded scheme to the personal offices of the CM via the photo, is certainly a valuable thing, if not monetary. 

The hitch with the case is that only a police officer of ACP/above can take up the case, also the person competent to remove the CM(Governor) must give prior sanction, which would invite accusations of witchunt from the opposition, which is already on the warpath and remembers the use of Article 356 to unfairly dismiss earlier CMs. That is a pity, because such a test case would really deter politicians from blatantly benefitting from public funds for their own publicity. It is one thing to claim things in campaign material/rhetoric, and yet another to permanently emboss your image on state funded property.