February 20, 05
By R.S. Narayanaswami
It was a sight for gods and no wonder, Lord Kapaleeswarar was a witness to the massive gathering of devout Hindus at Chennai on February 6, 2005, in response to a call by Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP).
The huge concourse of people came by all modes of transport from Kanyakumari to Hyderabad.
A call went out from the speakers that the Hindu society was being threatened from all sides and that Hindu consolidation was the need of the hour.
The huge audience responded in chorus to stand united as Hindus to counter the designs of the governments and the fanatics of alien faiths to denigrate and destroy the ancient Hindu culture in their own land.
The occasion was a public meeting, organised at a very short notice after a great many official hurdles, close to the very ancient Kapaleeswarar temple at Mylapore, Chennai. All the three wide roads around the big temple were packed with a sea of humanity estimated at 25,000 people.
That the vast gathering responded at a very short notice was proof of the capacity of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad in lighting for demonstration a just cause and also exhibit public anger over the arrest and incarceration, of the Kanchi Shankaracharyas.
The public meeting was organised as part of the continued struggle spearheaded by the VHP against the implication of the Kanchi Acharyas in a murder case by the Tamil Nadu government.
This is the fifth major successful programme of the VHP conducted in support of the Shankaracharyas.
The meeting started with bhajans and invocation and was addressed by Dr Murli Manohar Joshi, former Union Minister, Swami Visveswara Theertha Swamigal, Acharya Giriraj Kishore, Dr Subramaniam Swami, Janata Party leader, L. Ganesan, Akhil Bharatiya secretary, BJP, Shri H. Raja, BJP MLA, Shri P. Viswanatha Kakkan, advocate, Shri S. Vedantam, international vice president, VHP, and others.
Shankaracharya issue unites all
Launching an attack on the state government, Shri Raja listed the various cases foisted by the state government on many persons. He condemned the statement of the state government before the Human Rights Commission that the Shankara Mutt was no Mutt at all and that it was a graveyard. He called it defamatory and demanded an apology from the Chief Minister.
Dr Murli Manohar Joshi asserted that India had been a Hindu country since times immemorial possessing a great civilisation. “This noble civilisation is an eyesore to the fundamentalists of other faiths and an international conspiracy is being hatched to destroy the Hindu culture and Hindu institutions,” he said. He urged the Hindus to unite and stand up to defeat this conspiracy against Hinduism.
He said that Kanchi seers were revered all over the Hindu world and the silence of the Central Government over the the arrest and incarceration of the Acharyas was really intriguing.
He warned the Hindus that if they failed to unite now, worse things could happen to them in the future.
Shri L. Ganesan said that the state government must be removed for foisting fake cases on the Acharyas. He said that the Dravidian ideology must be eliminated and that Tamil Nadu must rally behind national and nationalist parties.
Smt. Radha Rajan wanted the Superintendent of Police, who is investigating and is himself under suspicion, to be dismissed.
Pejawar Mutt Acharya, Swami Visveswara Theertha Swamigal regretted that Jayalalithaa, who had done some good things for the Hindus in the past, had now taken this anti-Hindu action. “An Acharya who has been working for all sections of Hindu has been put to suffer indignity and humiliation,” he said and urged the Hindus to consolidate and counter all such wrong measures of secular powers. He said that the Hindus must be fearless and united.
Shri S. Vedantam referred to the fear psychosis created by the state government and said people must come out and rally behind the VHP and strengthen it to counter all such repressive measures of secular governments.
Dr S. Subramaniam Swami alleged that a world Christian conspiracy was afoot to destroy the Hindu culture and institutions. The action against Shankara Mutt was part of that conspiracy and alleged Jayalalithaa had acted under pressure from Sonia for her own reasons.
He asserted that the Dravidian movement which was dividing the Hindu society must be eliminated and regretted that the “law bends according to market place and while criminals roam about freely as leaders, the Acharyas are kept in prison.”
Shri Viswanatha Kakkan spoke on the need for Hindu consolidation and praised the efforts of VHP in uniting the Hindus.
Shri Raghavalu, VHP national secretary, speaking in Telugu, asserted that India was one and Hindus would rally behind any movement to counter threats to Hindu Mutts and institutions.
Shri C. Kanagarajan, proposed a vote of thanks.
Earlier, Shri R.S. Narayanaswami, state general secretary, VHP, welcomed the gathering.
The public meeting was a culmination of the five-day vishwa shanti mahayagna organised by the VHP for the honourable release of the Kanchi Acharyas.
Friday, February 25, 2005
Harassing Gurumurthy for taking up Hindu cause
February 27, 05
By Premendra Agrawal
The Vishnu Kanchi police station has filed a case against noted columnist S. Guru-murthy on charge of attempting to deviate the investigation by the Special Investigation Team into the Shankararaman murder case by giving wrong information. Pseudo-secularists see every thing with a pseudo-secular angle. Gurumurthy though a veteran social activist the media is hesitating to react on his arrest. On January 14, his article titled: ‘Will the ‘secular’ media heed Justice Reddy’s warning?” was published in: www.newindpress.com; Anonymous writes, “But it kept out of print an earlier and profound judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on the very Shankaracharya issue. Since the High Court had indicted the ‘secular’ media, the judgment was effectively censored by the media, understandably.”
A petition came up before Justice Narasimha Reddy of Andhra Pradesh High Court and he said, the “only provocation for the petitioner appears to be the recent unfortunate happenings in relation to a seer’’ of Kanchi mutt. The judge described the mutt as “an ancient, prestigious, glorious and reputed institution with almost 2,500 years’ history.” He said that the petitioner was ‘swayed’ by the media and “did not want to lag behind in the unprecedented process of denigration of the religious institution.’’ That is, the denigrating petition was provoked by the media.
The judge further said that it is “sad and sorrowful that an institution of such glory that withstood foreign invasions and social revolutions’’ over the past 2500 years “is virtually targeted and persecuted in an organised manner in an independent country”.
Who are all involved in the process of denigration? Justice Reddy answersed, “Not only individuals, but also a section of the institutions, such as the State and the press, appear to be determined to belittle and besmirch the Peetham.’’ Justice Reddy also said, “The role of courts, though indirect, is by no means insignificant.’’
He noted that “the proponents of human rights, fair play and dignity of the individuals and institutions have maintained a stoic silence.’’ He went on to say that “a powerful section is celebrating it or watching it with indifference.’’ Justice Reddy said this ‘perfidy’ against the mutt had ‘shocked’ the country and beyond.
Media have been quoting (Geelani’s lawyer) Nandita Haksar, who has said that the attack on Geelani was made by the Delhi police, which is absolutely baseless and a figment of imagination. For the media ‘Geelani’ is Saheb Geelani. Protest is going on in favour of him. After reading media reports, nobody can say Geelani is an accused in Parliament attack case. Media showed Geelani, Ishrat, etc. as innocent but what about Kanchi mutt and its seers?
Media carry reports on both sides of an incident generally, but they give more coverage to those personalities who are against Hindus and are one sided on Hindu heads and organisations. News channels sounded version of TN government's counsel Tulsi without mentioning seer’s verdict. They showed seer as culprit. But for them terrorists, separatists, insurgents such as college girl Ishrat Jehan, killed in Ahmedabad Police encounter, are patriot and innocent! So many human right activists come forward as rainy tortoise and media garland them. One activist in NDTV programme of Sirdesai declared attempts to kill Modi could not be called terrorist act. Where were these activists when in the mid-night on Diwali the seer was arrested. Jaya even said who is NHRC; I never bother for that.
The ‘disturbing’ past record of the investigating officer includes campaigning for an AIADMK candidates. Premkumar was suspended by the Chief Election Commissioner for campaigning for an AIADMK candidate during the 2004 Lok Sabha polls. But he was reinstated as an SP, Cuddalore, after the polls. It is obvious that here is a man who can go to any extent to please a political party. Even now he is embroiled in many cases.
Premkumar said that during the interrogation, Gurumurthy could not substantiate his argument put forth in his article. However, he forwarded a notice to the SIT stating that interrogating him was a wrong committed by the investigation team as he had freedom to express his views, Premkumar added.
While Premkumar had alleged that Nallakaman was stalling the trial, Justice Karpagavinayagam held that the cases had indeed been stalled by Premkumar and the other accused policemen and that the officer had shown disrespect to the Supreme Court and the High Court. The judge noted that the Madurai court had issued as many as 13 non-bailable warrants against Premkumar between September 1995 and March 2000, but none of them was executed.
By Premendra Agrawal
The Vishnu Kanchi police station has filed a case against noted columnist S. Guru-murthy on charge of attempting to deviate the investigation by the Special Investigation Team into the Shankararaman murder case by giving wrong information. Pseudo-secularists see every thing with a pseudo-secular angle. Gurumurthy though a veteran social activist the media is hesitating to react on his arrest. On January 14, his article titled: ‘Will the ‘secular’ media heed Justice Reddy’s warning?” was published in: www.newindpress.com; Anonymous writes, “But it kept out of print an earlier and profound judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on the very Shankaracharya issue. Since the High Court had indicted the ‘secular’ media, the judgment was effectively censored by the media, understandably.”
A petition came up before Justice Narasimha Reddy of Andhra Pradesh High Court and he said, the “only provocation for the petitioner appears to be the recent unfortunate happenings in relation to a seer’’ of Kanchi mutt. The judge described the mutt as “an ancient, prestigious, glorious and reputed institution with almost 2,500 years’ history.” He said that the petitioner was ‘swayed’ by the media and “did not want to lag behind in the unprecedented process of denigration of the religious institution.’’ That is, the denigrating petition was provoked by the media.
The judge further said that it is “sad and sorrowful that an institution of such glory that withstood foreign invasions and social revolutions’’ over the past 2500 years “is virtually targeted and persecuted in an organised manner in an independent country”.
Who are all involved in the process of denigration? Justice Reddy answersed, “Not only individuals, but also a section of the institutions, such as the State and the press, appear to be determined to belittle and besmirch the Peetham.’’ Justice Reddy also said, “The role of courts, though indirect, is by no means insignificant.’’
He noted that “the proponents of human rights, fair play and dignity of the individuals and institutions have maintained a stoic silence.’’ He went on to say that “a powerful section is celebrating it or watching it with indifference.’’ Justice Reddy said this ‘perfidy’ against the mutt had ‘shocked’ the country and beyond.
Media have been quoting (Geelani’s lawyer) Nandita Haksar, who has said that the attack on Geelani was made by the Delhi police, which is absolutely baseless and a figment of imagination. For the media ‘Geelani’ is Saheb Geelani. Protest is going on in favour of him. After reading media reports, nobody can say Geelani is an accused in Parliament attack case. Media showed Geelani, Ishrat, etc. as innocent but what about Kanchi mutt and its seers?
Media carry reports on both sides of an incident generally, but they give more coverage to those personalities who are against Hindus and are one sided on Hindu heads and organisations. News channels sounded version of TN government's counsel Tulsi without mentioning seer’s verdict. They showed seer as culprit. But for them terrorists, separatists, insurgents such as college girl Ishrat Jehan, killed in Ahmedabad Police encounter, are patriot and innocent! So many human right activists come forward as rainy tortoise and media garland them. One activist in NDTV programme of Sirdesai declared attempts to kill Modi could not be called terrorist act. Where were these activists when in the mid-night on Diwali the seer was arrested. Jaya even said who is NHRC; I never bother for that.
The ‘disturbing’ past record of the investigating officer includes campaigning for an AIADMK candidates. Premkumar was suspended by the Chief Election Commissioner for campaigning for an AIADMK candidate during the 2004 Lok Sabha polls. But he was reinstated as an SP, Cuddalore, after the polls. It is obvious that here is a man who can go to any extent to please a political party. Even now he is embroiled in many cases.
Premkumar said that during the interrogation, Gurumurthy could not substantiate his argument put forth in his article. However, he forwarded a notice to the SIT stating that interrogating him was a wrong committed by the investigation team as he had freedom to express his views, Premkumar added.
While Premkumar had alleged that Nallakaman was stalling the trial, Justice Karpagavinayagam held that the cases had indeed been stalled by Premkumar and the other accused policemen and that the officer had shown disrespect to the Supreme Court and the High Court. The judge noted that the Madurai court had issued as many as 13 non-bailable warrants against Premkumar between September 1995 and March 2000, but none of them was executed.
It could happen to you…
It could happen to you…
PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO AT LEAST 10 PATRIOTIC INDIANS - THEY DESERVE TO KNOW THE TRUTH
The current apathy of the Indian masses is appalling. Silent as they stand in mute consent to the attack on the Kanchi Mutt - this is the start of the degeneration of the freedom and liberty that we Indians take for granted.
Read the following facts and forward this to at last 10 other patriotic Indians. This is the least you can do to save Indian democracy and liberty. The Kanchi Sankaracharya case is NOT only about Hindus or Hinduism - it is about YOU and what could happen to YOU.
Case 1: If the State chooses to attack rather than protect
A State government (Tamil Nadu in this case) has charged two of the senior most religious figures of India on a murder case - listen to what our most revered Supreme Court had to say:
"There is no direct evidence linking the Sankaracharya to the instigating murder."
"People in public life, holding high offices may receive such slanderous letters. It is not possible to say that they could have read it all. In this particular case, the petitioner has kept quiet for three years. To say that he suddenly got angry (upset) and asked for Sankara Raman to be killed is not an acceptable argument."
Imagine what the State can do to YOU -
- Have someone flood you with letters of protest, threats etc.
- 'Significantly impact' the sender OR easier still, have that person file a case against you.
- And YOU could be fighting that case for all your life.
Who could this happen to?
This could happen to anyone - Yes my fellow Indians - ANYONE. You could be ...
a business man who refuses to bribe an officer,
a soldier refusing to be a mute spectator to injustice,
a school teacher who refuses to let an influential person’s child play truant.
And what can you do?
You cannot leave the country and flee.... you have no option but to hope that someone can save you from the illegitimate wrath of some influential 'leaders'.
think...
Case 2: If the State appoints a 'rogue' to 'POLICE' you
In the current Sankaracharya case, the State has appointed PREMKUMAR, a person who any average reader of this email would not hesitate to call 'an unfortunate choice' after reading the following -
• Mr. Premkumar faces several criminal cases and was convicted by a court in a criminal case and suspended from service by the Election Commission for having canvassed for the ruling AIADMK candidate (current ruling party in Tamil Nadu) in the Vilathikulam Assembly by-election
• Mr. Premkumar, when he was sub-inspector of police in Vadipatti near Madurai in 1982, thrashed and paraded one Mr. Nallakannu in handcuffs. Mr. Nallakannu’s wife, a teacher, and his son were also not spared.
SHOCKING? Well, there is more ...
• Mr. Premkumar allegedly tortured one Mr. John Joseph and two nuns in Nagercoil. They were stripped and humiliated. In that case, the High Court recommended that the Crime-Branch CID should prosecute him.
• In July 2003, a fast track court in Madurai found Mr. Premkumar guilty of various criminal offences. It, however, let him out under the Probationary Offenders Act after admonishing him. Though he was convicted in another case as well, the judge did not sentence him since the circumstances and facts leading to the registration of both the cases were the same.
• Despite pending criminal cases, Mr. Premkumar was promoted as Additional Superintendent of Police in 1998 and SP the next year.
Friends - if this is not SHOCKING - what is?
Can you see a trend where the State has chosen one truly 'unfortunate' choice and ensured that the Police who are meant to protect actually victimize you!
This is NOT a joke or a RANT. This is serious my friends. This is after all a Police force that COULD come to your door step this very moment and haul you away and do worse... and the worst part is that you can do NOTHING to stop a vengeful State.
Case 3: If the MEDIA hits below the belt
Do you know that the Indian media is one of the WORST in the world? It is not too far away from the trashy tabloids that the United Kingdom is famous for.
Consider this example - During the recent US elections, one of India's leading papers (Times of India) carried a headline that said - "Florida 2000. India 2004?" - stating a case as to why Americans in India could swing the election in favor of one party or the other!!! For those of who you live in the US - how many times did you hear THAT in your local media? You know the answer - ZERO! Of course there are Americans in India - but to say that their votes will swing an American election is vivid Imagineering at best and plain lies at worst.
So what should you do OR what can you do?
I am going to urge you to -
2. Ask the questions - DO NOT be afraid to ask for answers if you see the State failing you. Your silence on these and other issues will rot the base of our nation, even as we build skyscrapers of fortune. Do not let this happen to you and our future generations!
3. Rein in the media - flood the media and let them know if you do not believe that they are doing an honest job. Let them work for their earnings like you and I do.
WHY AM I SENDING this message?
As a proud Indian, I am happy to see our country progress on multiple fronts. This will soon fade away unless we ACT NOW. The above case of the Kanchi Seers brings to light a very dangerous and suicidal trend - State sponsored persecution of citizens. This is unfortunately not something new - ask the Jews in Nazi Germany.
So long my fellow Indians and God Speed - Long Live India! Long Live Democracy!
Yours,
A fellow Indian
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Protect the Freedom of Speech! - Journalist petitions High Court
"Gurumurthy files a writ petition in Chennai High Court."
Chennai: Kanchipuram police have filed a case against journalist Gurumurthy for writing articles in journals about the Sankararaman murder case. He is now in hiding. At this stage, a writ pettion has been filed in Chennai High Court on his behalf. In that he has said that the case foisted upon him is against the right to freedom of speech and is unlawful.
* * *
[Editor notes that Gurumurthy's lawyer was reported widely to have sent the police his client's whereabouts and contact telephone number. Therefore, we tend to discount dinamalar's characterization that Gurumurthy is "in hiding", especially since newsweekly vikatan recently found him easily enough for an interview!]
Chennai: Kanchipuram police have filed a case against journalist Gurumurthy for writing articles in journals about the Sankararaman murder case. He is now in hiding. At this stage, a writ pettion has been filed in Chennai High Court on his behalf. In that he has said that the case foisted upon him is against the right to freedom of speech and is unlawful.
* * *
[Editor notes that Gurumurthy's lawyer was reported widely to have sent the police his client's whereabouts and contact telephone number. Therefore, we tend to discount dinamalar's characterization that Gurumurthy is "in hiding", especially since newsweekly vikatan recently found him easily enough for an interview!]
Another Case Concocted!
"Effort to arrest again: Jayendra [Swamigal]'s petition for anticipatory bail."
Chennai Feb 22: Kanchi Jayendrar [Swamigal] has filed a petition to Chennai High Court saying that, since the Kanchipuram police are trying to arrest me again, the court should grant me anticipatory bail .
He has said in the petition:
Police have registered a case saying that two lawyers threatened approver Ravi Subramoniam asking him to retract his statement in the Sankararaman murder case.
On the basis of the complaint made by Ravi Subramoniam's wife Chitra on 19th Feb., a case has been filed on myself and lawyers Revathy, Nadira Banu, Shanmugam and Thyagarajan.
The case has been filed under IPC Cr Code Sections 201 (tampering with a witness), 213(helping an accused escape punishment), 450(trespassing with the intention to committ a crime) and 506 (threatening).
Chithra's complaint says that the lawyers Revathy and Nadira Banu met Ravi Subramoniam in the Kanchi Sub Jail and talked to him. At that time, they threatened him to retract his statement already made or else he will have to face serious consequences, the complaint states.This complaint is false.
Following this, [the lawyer named in the complaint], Nadira Banu got anticipatory bail from Chengalpet court. The Kanchi Bar Association has also passed a resolution condemning the police's action in this matter.
I, (Jayendrar) have no involvement whatsoever in this matter. There is absolutely no truth in this complaint. No one, not even the lawyers could meet Ravisubramoniam in Kanchi Sub Jail.
This case has been filed to intentionally void the bail granted to me by the Supreme Court and the High Court.
This case has been fabricated with an intention of creating a reason to cancel the bail granted to me. This trick the police is plying, is misuse of the law. It is [done] with an intention of [getting] revenge.
Hence an order should be given granting me anticipatory bail so the police do not arrest me. I firmly promise that I will not tamper witnesses or evidences in the Sankarraman murder case, said Jayendrar in the petition.
This petition comes for hearing on Tuesday [Feb 22, 2005].
* * *
[Editor's note: Well, this is a bit strange. On Feb 10th, Ravi Subramaniam, who is heavily guarded in Kanchi Sub Jail, wrote a letter to Magistrate Uttamaraaj, supposedly complaining that Revathy and Nadira Banu threatened him with his life on 2 occassions to change his testimony. For some odd reason, the case was never registered.
In the meanwhile, Nadira Banu applied for, and obtained anticipatory bail from Ramayana-reading Judge Akbar Ali.
9 full days later, with his letter still languishing presumably in some corner of the court system, Ravi Subramaniam's wife, Chitra suddenly appears at Shiva Kanchi police station to file an FIR alleging this outlandish story about her husband being threatened while in police custody.
Co-incidentally, just 1 day later, we hear that Ravi Subramaniam was admitted to the ICU at Kanchi Hospital.
Hmmm....
There is also a rather confusing story floating around that Ravi Subramaniam complained that two members of the Special Police team asked him to sign blank pieces of paper.
One wonders what might happen next to Ravi and his family. Will his family be placed under "police protection", so the police can keep a close eye - and a firm grip - on them as well?
We watch and wonder...]
Chennai Feb 22: Kanchi Jayendrar [Swamigal] has filed a petition to Chennai High Court saying that, since the Kanchipuram police are trying to arrest me again, the court should grant me anticipatory bail .
He has said in the petition:
Police have registered a case saying that two lawyers threatened approver Ravi Subramoniam asking him to retract his statement in the Sankararaman murder case.
On the basis of the complaint made by Ravi Subramoniam's wife Chitra on 19th Feb., a case has been filed on myself and lawyers Revathy, Nadira Banu, Shanmugam and Thyagarajan.
The case has been filed under IPC Cr Code Sections 201 (tampering with a witness), 213(helping an accused escape punishment), 450(trespassing with the intention to committ a crime) and 506 (threatening).
Chithra's complaint says that the lawyers Revathy and Nadira Banu met Ravi Subramoniam in the Kanchi Sub Jail and talked to him. At that time, they threatened him to retract his statement already made or else he will have to face serious consequences, the complaint states.This complaint is false.
Following this, [the lawyer named in the complaint], Nadira Banu got anticipatory bail from Chengalpet court. The Kanchi Bar Association has also passed a resolution condemning the police's action in this matter.
I, (Jayendrar) have no involvement whatsoever in this matter. There is absolutely no truth in this complaint. No one, not even the lawyers could meet Ravisubramoniam in Kanchi Sub Jail.
This case has been filed to intentionally void the bail granted to me by the Supreme Court and the High Court.
This case has been fabricated with an intention of creating a reason to cancel the bail granted to me. This trick the police is plying, is misuse of the law. It is [done] with an intention of [getting] revenge.
Hence an order should be given granting me anticipatory bail so the police do not arrest me. I firmly promise that I will not tamper witnesses or evidences in the Sankarraman murder case, said Jayendrar in the petition.
This petition comes for hearing on Tuesday [Feb 22, 2005].
* * *
[Editor's note: Well, this is a bit strange. On Feb 10th, Ravi Subramaniam, who is heavily guarded in Kanchi Sub Jail, wrote a letter to Magistrate Uttamaraaj, supposedly complaining that Revathy and Nadira Banu threatened him with his life on 2 occassions to change his testimony. For some odd reason, the case was never registered.
In the meanwhile, Nadira Banu applied for, and obtained anticipatory bail from Ramayana-reading Judge Akbar Ali.
9 full days later, with his letter still languishing presumably in some corner of the court system, Ravi Subramaniam's wife, Chitra suddenly appears at Shiva Kanchi police station to file an FIR alleging this outlandish story about her husband being threatened while in police custody.
Co-incidentally, just 1 day later, we hear that Ravi Subramaniam was admitted to the ICU at Kanchi Hospital.
Hmmm....
There is also a rather confusing story floating around that Ravi Subramaniam complained that two members of the Special Police team asked him to sign blank pieces of paper.
One wonders what might happen next to Ravi and his family. Will his family be placed under "police protection", so the police can keep a close eye - and a firm grip - on them as well?
We watch and wonder...]
Saturday, February 19, 2005
Sankaracharya was under surveillance: Was it a set up?
"Policeman who spied on Jayendrar [Swamigal] for 1 year"
February 14, 2005
When Jayendrar [Swamigal] and Jayalalithaa had a “cold war” going on between them, the police were ordered to keep a close eye on the Shankar Math. Since they [i.e. JJ’s government] might not get full information from the Intelligence Wing, they decided to plant someone inside as a spy. Following this [decision], the Government came forward to give security to Jayendrar [Swamigal].
This job was entrusted to an officer who is very close to The Girlfriend. The officer, whose name includes the word “mutthu”, used to go to the Sankara Math everyday and stand meekly before Jayendrar [Swamigal]. To inspect the Math's security and under the pretext of [giving] the Sankaracharyas security, arrangements were made for 24-hour, round the clock police watch.
In the same way, the Math's chief administrators were also under watch. They [i.e. police] also got permission from Sankaracharya to take pictures of suspicious people who came to the Math. So, they accumulated information about who came, when, at what time, etc. Amongst them, they [gave] most importance when people like actors and actresses or people like Appu [came], shooting off a whole lot of videotape .
The Math people were not in the least suspicious as police said this was done to protect the Math against terrorism. Their phones were also tapped. The close surveillance continued until they knew all the details of the activities of the Math and the people close to Sankaracharya.
After the work was done, that police officer [the one with 'mutthu' in his name] was transferred elsewhere. Following that only, the Shankarraman murder took place.
To help this case, they had already gathered photos, video footage and information to be used in this case, is the sensational rumor.
* * *
[http://sankaracharyaarticles.blogspot.com, Editor's comments: Hmmm... The police officer whose name includes the word ‘mutthu’..... Could it be JJ's favorite K. Muthukaruppan?
K. Muthukaruppan, former Police Commissioner for Chennai, whose brief, recent resume runs as follows:
June, 2001 -- Key figure in the midnight arrest of Karunanidhi. (Interestingly, talk of doctored video-tape doing the rounds back then!)
July, 2001 -- Reported to have contacted Stalin aide, Annanagar Ramesh in regards to a corruption case filed against then Chennai Mayor Stalin. Ramesh, along with his wife and 3 daughters later committed suicide, charging, in one of his suicide letters, that police had threatened to foist a narcotics case against him.
March, 2002 -- Accused of having illegally seized P. Ramesh's property near Annanagar.
June, 2003 -- Suspended upon investigation by Directorate of Vigilance, Anti-Corruption, into his 'disproportionate assets'.
October, 2004 -- Ordered to 7 days' jail by Madras High Court for inciting a subordinate to file a false affidavit].
February 14, 2005
When Jayendrar [Swamigal] and Jayalalithaa had a “cold war” going on between them, the police were ordered to keep a close eye on the Shankar Math. Since they [i.e. JJ’s government] might not get full information from the Intelligence Wing, they decided to plant someone inside as a spy. Following this [decision], the Government came forward to give security to Jayendrar [Swamigal].
This job was entrusted to an officer who is very close to The Girlfriend. The officer, whose name includes the word “mutthu”, used to go to the Sankara Math everyday and stand meekly before Jayendrar [Swamigal]. To inspect the Math's security and under the pretext of [giving] the Sankaracharyas security, arrangements were made for 24-hour, round the clock police watch.
In the same way, the Math's chief administrators were also under watch. They [i.e. police] also got permission from Sankaracharya to take pictures of suspicious people who came to the Math. So, they accumulated information about who came, when, at what time, etc. Amongst them, they [gave] most importance when people like actors and actresses or people like Appu [came], shooting off a whole lot of videotape .
The Math people were not in the least suspicious as police said this was done to protect the Math against terrorism. Their phones were also tapped. The close surveillance continued until they knew all the details of the activities of the Math and the people close to Sankaracharya.
After the work was done, that police officer [the one with 'mutthu' in his name] was transferred elsewhere. Following that only, the Shankarraman murder took place.
To help this case, they had already gathered photos, video footage and information to be used in this case, is the sensational rumor.
* * *
[http://sankaracharyaarticles.blogspot.com, Editor's comments: Hmmm... The police officer whose name includes the word ‘mutthu’..... Could it be JJ's favorite K. Muthukaruppan?
K. Muthukaruppan, former Police Commissioner for Chennai, whose brief, recent resume runs as follows:
June, 2001 -- Key figure in the midnight arrest of Karunanidhi. (Interestingly, talk of doctored video-tape doing the rounds back then!)
July, 2001 -- Reported to have contacted Stalin aide, Annanagar Ramesh in regards to a corruption case filed against then Chennai Mayor Stalin. Ramesh, along with his wife and 3 daughters later committed suicide, charging, in one of his suicide letters, that police had threatened to foist a narcotics case against him.
March, 2002 -- Accused of having illegally seized P. Ramesh's property near Annanagar.
June, 2003 -- Suspended upon investigation by Directorate of Vigilance, Anti-Corruption, into his 'disproportionate assets'.
October, 2004 -- Ordered to 7 days' jail by Madras High Court for inciting a subordinate to file a false affidavit].
Red Herrings and secular charlatans
Red Herrings and secular charlatans
‘Jayalalithaa defends Kanchi SP’ was a headline in one of the English newspapers on Monday the 7th February and I am not surprised. Only a charlatan could defend the indefensible. The news report is remarkable for one reason only - that the TN Assembly could be led so easily astray by ‘communal’ red herrings. What may be closer to the truth is that these elected representatives belonging to several parties, because discussing the real issue may expose holes in their own armour, allowed Jayalalithaa to put a ring around their noses and willingly allowed themselves to be led astray. Or worse still, this Assembly probably collectively either lacked the intelligence or the political will (inexcusable both ways) to push Jayalalithaa into a corner over the whole issue of a scum bag called Prem Kumar.
Prem Kumar is the Superintendent of police in Kancheepuram ‘entrusted’ (wrong word) with investigating the Sankararaman murder case. Prem Kumar’s track record as a policeman and the manner of his (read Jayalalithaa’s) treatment of the Kanchi Acharyas are so sordid that an honest and upright Director-General of Police like IK Govind had to be removed from Law and Order to an inconsequential posting where I am sure he will remain until his retirement or for as long as Jayalalithaa remains Chief Minister; whichever is sooner.
Prem Kumar was brought in as SP Kancheepuram by the diabolical Jayalalithaa for his known violent, abusive and intimidating ways. What makes the blood boil is that in doing so Jayalalithaa has perpetrated with impunity not just a patently undemocratic act but an act that ought to have invited a scathing contempt-of-court indictment. Prem Kumar’s abusive and violent conduct with civil society provoked a judge of the Madras High Court to term him ‘barbarian’. Prem Kumar has been indicted for gross intimidation, foisting false cases, obtaining ‘confessions’ under duress for offences and crimes not committed and also for using the print and electronic media to ‘bolster’ false confessions and for disinformation.
It is for these very reasons that Jayalalithaa had Prem Kumar posted as SP of Kancheepuram to probe the Sankararaman murder case. Her intention was to destroy Pujya Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal, break his spirit, destroy the reputation of the Acharyas and the mutt, and ultimately destroy the mutt itself. If she could have her way, she would do anything to make sure that Pujya Acharya languished for as long as possible in jail. But she had no real case against him. And so she needed the scum bag called Prem Kumar to achieve this for her and he for reasons best known to him obliged the woman. His mandate was to manufacture cases using any method to destroy Pujya Acharya’s reputation and to keep him in jail.
In a case that came up for hearing before Justice Karpagavinayakam of the Madras High Court in October 2002, (http://www.vigilonline.com/interact/discuss/discuss.asp?plainSpeakId=21) the judge indicted the scumbag for illegal confinement of Father John Joseph and two nuns of the Charismatic Center – Sister Femina Rose and Sister Sahaya Rani for two days without producing them before the local Magistrate, for torturing them, for physically assaulting them, violating their modesty and dignity and also for using intimidating tactics to obtain confessions. This indictment has been made by Justice Karpagavinayakam in the strongest possible language for any judge. The judge had also directed the CBCID to file a ‘last report’ before the court stating compliance with the Court’s order to initiate prosecution against Prem Kumar.
[48. To sum up:
(i)The first respondent, namely, the State of Tamil Nadu is directed to launch prosecution through C.B.C.I.D. against Premkumar, former D.S.P., Special Branch, Nagercoil and Panneerselvam, former D.S.P. of Nagercoil Town, who were involved in the offences relating to the illegal custody of the injured persons and torture committed on them, especially on women, viz., witness No.4 Sahaya Rani and witness No.5 Femina Rose.
(ii) On passing suitable orders by the State Government, the C.B.C.I.D. shall record the statement of the injured Femina Rose and register F.I.R. against Premkumar and Panneerselvam, the D.S.Ps. for the appropriate offences and shall record the statements of the other injured persons and other witnesses examined before the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, the Team of Doctors and any other witnesses to be produced and collect other materials, if any, and launch prosecution against the two named police officials by filing the final report before the appropriate Court within three months from the date of receipt of this order.]
The judge has also passed scathing remarks against Prem Kumar in another case which unfortunately for Prem Kumar had come up for hearing before Justice Karpagavinayakam himself earlier in June 2002. The judge wondered how a policeman facing criminal charges and who was directly recruited into the police force as DSP, could accept promotions under false pretexts and also how he could deliberately not inform the High Court of the same. Justice Karpagavinayakam also wondered how, when the Supreme Court had ordered speedy disposal of these cases and when his rank as DSP had been held to be temporary in view of the cases pending against him, the state government could further promote the scum bag to ASP and later to SP.The judge also declared him 'absconder' with non-bailable warrants issued against him. Prem Kumar was directed by the judge to surrender before the sessions court to get the NBW revoked and then to subject himself to the due process of law.
[ 32. It is further noticed from the diary extract that on 23.4.2001, N.B.W. was again issued against the petitioner (A1) and the same has not been executed till date. This shows that the petitioner has no regard for law and for truth. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has made an incorrect and false statement to mislead this Court.
38. The fact that N.B.W. issued against the petitioner is pending for more than one year without execution and the failure of the petitioner to surrender before the Court, seeking for withdrawal of the said warrant and the non-appearance of the accused one after another on every hearing would make it clear that the trial is being dragged on for a number of years only at the instance of the accused and not at the instance of the prosecution party. 41. Therefore, the Director General of Police is directed to give suitable direction to the concerned Superintendent of Police to ensure the presence of all the accused, the police personnel in these cases on the relevant dates so that the trial would be over within the time mentioned above. The petitioner and others against whom N.B.Ws. were issued are directed to surrender before the Court concerned along with the petition to recall the N.B.Ws. On their surrender, the trial Court may recall by imposing suitable conditions to ensure their presence before the Court on all the hearing dates.
33. One other aspect is to be noticed in this context. When the appointment of the petitioner as D.S.P. was challenged in writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.11966 of 1985, by the order dated 22.7.199 4, this Court while referring the Rule 10(a)(iv) which provides that, where it is necessary to appoint an officer against whom an enquiry into allegations of corruption or misconduct is pending, the appointing authority may appoint him temporarily pending enquiry into the charges against him, would hold that the appointment cannot be said to be illegal as the appointment has been made only temporary as the criminal cases against him are pending in the Court of Session.
34. As such, the finding given by this Court in the above writ petition that the appointment is only temporary which is subject to the result in the criminal proceedings. But, it is stated by the petitioner in paragraph 3 of his petition that the petitioner was promoted as Additional Superintendent of Police in the year 1998 and further promoted as Superintendent of Police in the year 1999.
35. There are no details in the petition as to how he was promoted even though his appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police was temporary pending disposal of the criminal cases before the Court of Session. Having obtained the promotion as Superintendent of Police even though his appointment was held to be temporary by this Court, the petitioner instead of bringing to the notice of the writ Court that the order passed by this Court has not been complied with and instead of filing an application for seeking a fresh direction, has approached this Court for the reasons best known to him seeking for quashing alleging that the criminal cases pending against him are unnecessarily dragged on at the instance of Nallakaman with a view to harass the petitioner. This prayer for quashing sought for by the petitioner in this petition would amount to disrespect the orders passed by this Court as well as the Supreme Court earlier.]
Now let us go beyond these horrifying judicial strictures and examine Jayalalithaa’s devilish motives in posting this sleaze as SP Kancheepuram. As the two judgments would indicate, Prem Kumar is known to ill-treat people whom he summons for questioning. He is also known to arrest people and not produce them within 24 hours before a local magistrate as is the law. He is known to physically and verbally abuse these people. He is also known to summon the media and coerce his victims to make ‘confessional’ statements to them. And Prem Kumar’s favourite weapon is always sexual misconduct and threats of rape and/or physical assault.
That an obliging judge in the subordinate courts could actually hand over Pujya Acharya into police custody, into the hands of this scum bag called Prem Kumar takes my breath away. Was not the judge aware of the damning indictment of Prem Kumar by the Madras High Court for violence and physical assault? Had the judge known about Justice Karpagavinayakam’s strictures against Prem Kumar would the judge have still granted police custody of Pujya Acharya to this scum bag? Is there any excuse for the judge not knowing about the Madras High Court’s indictment of Prem Kumar or that the Governor of Tamil Nadu has sanctioned the prosecution of Prem Kumar as directed by the Madras High Court? Or are we to assume that the judge knew about these strictures and nevertheless granted police custody?
When Pujya Acharya’s police custody ended Prem Kumar planted stories in the media about Pujya Acharya having confessed to the crime. There was also this terrible video clipping of Pujya Acharya in the Vellore jail talking in slurred tones, lying supine. It is not difficult to conclude that Pujya Acharya was probably drugged when the video was taken. More to the point, who shot the video? And if this was a police video why was this video ‘released’ to Nakkeeran, a journal as sleazy as Prem Kumar himself? News is, the wife of one of Nakkeeran’s reporters and Prem Kumar’s wife are sisters!
Then we have sordid planted-by-police stories of womanizing and sexual misconduct by Pujya Acharya with one Usha, another Anuradha and yet another Swarnamalya all being dragged and dragging Pujya Acharya through slime. By this time it was obvious that Prem Kumar and his lady boss had no real case against Pujya Acharya and Jayalalithaa’s henchman was only doing what he had been mandated to do – foist cases, obtain confessions under duress and use the media to destroy the reputation of his victims. This was and continues to be Prem Kumar’s modus operandi. The following is the damning indictment of Prem Kumar by Justice Karpagavinayakam again in October 2002.
[It is clear from the observation made by this Court as well as the Supreme Court that if a police officer transgresses the circumscribed limits and illegally exercises his investigatory powers in breach of any statutory provision causing serious prejudice to the personal liberty of a citizen, then the Court on being approached by the person aggrieved shall consider the nature and extent of the breach of the police officer concerned and pass appropriate orders as may be called for without leaving the citizen to the mercy of police echelons, since human dignity is a dear value of our Constitution.
If this sort of inhuman and ill-treatment in the name of interrogation by the police officers, that too at the D.S.P. level is allowed to go on, then there is no protection even to the persons who are innocent. When these atrocities were brought to the notice of this Court, certainly the powers of this Court have got to be exercised to give appropriate orders so that the members of the Law Enforcing Agency will know their limit. The people also would feel and hope that they would be protected as per the rights guaranteed under the Constitution by arms of law through the appropriate orders passed by this Court by invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The role played by the police officers in this case would make this Court to think that these officials have behaved like barbarians without giving any respect to human dignity, that too with the ladies Sahaya Rani and Femina Rose who are regarded as sisters. As a matter of fact, these people were compelled to give statements to Press persons who took video. This Court earlier dealt with the bail application by some of the accused in this case and had an occasion to see the said video in order to show whether those statements were obtained by threat or coercion. On seeing the Video, this Court was unable to come to the conclusion that there was any threat since only some of the portions of the statements were shown to this Court. This Court is unable to understand as to why the Press Reporters were allowed to take Video. Admittedly, the Video was not taken by the Law Enforcing Agency. Strangely, the Superintendent of Police has filed an affidavit before this Court in this writ petition stating that the Video was taken by the Press Persons in spite of the objection raised by the police. This statement of Superintendent of Police cannot be true. When the objection was raised by the police, how the Press Reporters could record statement of these injured persons through Video? In the bail application, this Court was requested by the Public Prosecutor to witness the Video. If such an objection was raised by the police, there was no necessity to keep that Video with them. These are all would show that the police agency wanted to mislead the Court by giving the false particulars by showing the Video.]
Every sane person who saw the video clipping featured on every gloating satellite channel would have asserted that the video was doctored and unnatural in the extreme. They say habitual and hardened criminals always have a signature modus operandi. The course that the Sankararaman murder investigation traversed has Prem Kumar’s fingerprints and signature all over. I have been wondering why Justice Karpagavinayakam has so far not taken suo moto notice of press reports about the course of the case and have Prem Kumar removed from the case in the best interests of truth and justice.
I can even understand that Jayalalithaa, as is her wont, has scant respect for truth or justice or even the law and the judiciary. But I find this absolutely mind-boggling that having launched prosecution against a policeman in compliance with a court order, the state government will then go on to use the same twice damned policeman in an extremely sensitive murder investigation. The following are the details of the Government Order (GO) launching prosecution against Prem Kumar:
[Home (SC) Department. (SC is strictly confidential)
GO # 3D {67} dated 21st May, 2003
Ref. 1: Order dated 3-10-2002 of the High Court of Madras in WP (writ petition) # 15596/97 filed by Thiru John Joseph.
Ref. 2: From the Addl. DGP Crime Branch CID Chennai, letter RC # C6/5/016523/2002 dated 12-4-2003 received with DGP’s letter RC # 3382/231132/CRIME III (2/2002 dated 25-4-2003)
Abstract: Prosecution – police department – Thiru K Prem Kumar, formerly DSP, now SP, Coastal Security Group, Chennai – Allegations of criminal conspiracy and abetment of criminal misconduct – sanction of prosecution under Sec. 197 (1) (b) Cr. PC – accorded]
As seen, the Governor has ordered the state government to prosecute Prem Kumar for criminal conspiracy and criminal misconduct in 2003. It was Jayalalithaa’s government then. So what does it say for her pious protestations about all of us being equal before the law, that the law must take its own course and about the majesty of the law. Above all what does it say about the Assembly of idiots who made passionate speeches about the secular credentials of Prem Kumar who placed the charge sheet against Pujya Acharyas and 26 others at the feet of Lord Varadaraja of Kancheepuram before lodging it with the courts. Not one member of this august Assembly had the wits to demand Prem Kumar’s scalp or Jayalalithaa’s head for his continuance in the TN police force or for Jayalalithaa using him for all the dirty reasons.
For these elected representatives that Prem Kumar placed the charge sheet at the feet of the Lord was more important than the fact that he has been found guilty of barbarism and criminal misconduct by the Madras High Court. Secular charlatans all of them. The next time some ass tells you all that the law is majestic or that the law must take its own course or that all are equal before the law, do take the law into your own hands folks and deal appropriately with these scoundrels. The law will be safer in your hands than in the hands of police men like Prem Kumar or the judge who handed Pujya Acharya into Prem Kumar’s police custody.
[42. Before parting with this case, it shall be mentioned that there are very serious allegations against the petitioner, who is stated to have severely beaten the Ex-serviceman and his wife, a Teacher at the police station causing grievous hurt. It is shocking to see from the complaints of Nallakaman and the R.D.O., the petitioner disrobed the saree of the woman Teacher at the police station and attempted to remove her Thali (Mangalya Sutra). It is further stated that she was brutally beaten and the second respondent with the handcuffs was taken outside the police station and was paraded up to the Bus Stand and in the presence of the public, he was continuously beaten. Only on the agitation of the public, the District Collector intervened, as a result of which, an enquiry was conducted by the R.D.O. after examining 83 witnesses.
43. If these allegations are true and proved before the Court of law, it would be shameful to find that a person like the petitioner has been allowed to work in the Police Department. In the light of the very serious allegation, the trial Court should see that the trial is to go on preferably on day-to-day basis and the same is finished of within the time schedule.
44. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court by the order dated 7.11.19 89 would specifically observe that all the three cases to be tried together. This Court also by the order dated 22.7.1994 directed the trial Court to dispose of the matters on or before 31.3.1995. Despite these directions, the trial Court was not allowed to be proceeded with. Therefore, this Court is constrained to give a fresh direction hoping that at least the direction given now would be complied with.]
And that is what we want to know from the CM and the DGP. Have they complied with the court order? And if they haven’t why can we not demand their removal? More to the point, why is the TN Assembly, specifically the DMK, the BJP and all other anti-Jayalalithaa parties and politicians silent on the issue? What are we to make of it? That they think playing the ‘secular’ card will win them more votes than standing on the side of righteousness, probity in public life, and respecting Hindu sensibilities? It would seem so. And Hindus have only themselves to blame that Indian polity doesn’t think it needs them for survival.
17th February, 2005.
‘Jayalalithaa defends Kanchi SP’ was a headline in one of the English newspapers on Monday the 7th February and I am not surprised. Only a charlatan could defend the indefensible. The news report is remarkable for one reason only - that the TN Assembly could be led so easily astray by ‘communal’ red herrings. What may be closer to the truth is that these elected representatives belonging to several parties, because discussing the real issue may expose holes in their own armour, allowed Jayalalithaa to put a ring around their noses and willingly allowed themselves to be led astray. Or worse still, this Assembly probably collectively either lacked the intelligence or the political will (inexcusable both ways) to push Jayalalithaa into a corner over the whole issue of a scum bag called Prem Kumar.
Prem Kumar is the Superintendent of police in Kancheepuram ‘entrusted’ (wrong word) with investigating the Sankararaman murder case. Prem Kumar’s track record as a policeman and the manner of his (read Jayalalithaa’s) treatment of the Kanchi Acharyas are so sordid that an honest and upright Director-General of Police like IK Govind had to be removed from Law and Order to an inconsequential posting where I am sure he will remain until his retirement or for as long as Jayalalithaa remains Chief Minister; whichever is sooner.
Prem Kumar was brought in as SP Kancheepuram by the diabolical Jayalalithaa for his known violent, abusive and intimidating ways. What makes the blood boil is that in doing so Jayalalithaa has perpetrated with impunity not just a patently undemocratic act but an act that ought to have invited a scathing contempt-of-court indictment. Prem Kumar’s abusive and violent conduct with civil society provoked a judge of the Madras High Court to term him ‘barbarian’. Prem Kumar has been indicted for gross intimidation, foisting false cases, obtaining ‘confessions’ under duress for offences and crimes not committed and also for using the print and electronic media to ‘bolster’ false confessions and for disinformation.
It is for these very reasons that Jayalalithaa had Prem Kumar posted as SP of Kancheepuram to probe the Sankararaman murder case. Her intention was to destroy Pujya Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal, break his spirit, destroy the reputation of the Acharyas and the mutt, and ultimately destroy the mutt itself. If she could have her way, she would do anything to make sure that Pujya Acharya languished for as long as possible in jail. But she had no real case against him. And so she needed the scum bag called Prem Kumar to achieve this for her and he for reasons best known to him obliged the woman. His mandate was to manufacture cases using any method to destroy Pujya Acharya’s reputation and to keep him in jail.
In a case that came up for hearing before Justice Karpagavinayakam of the Madras High Court in October 2002, (http://www.vigilonline.com/interact/discuss/discuss.asp?plainSpeakId=21) the judge indicted the scumbag for illegal confinement of Father John Joseph and two nuns of the Charismatic Center – Sister Femina Rose and Sister Sahaya Rani for two days without producing them before the local Magistrate, for torturing them, for physically assaulting them, violating their modesty and dignity and also for using intimidating tactics to obtain confessions. This indictment has been made by Justice Karpagavinayakam in the strongest possible language for any judge. The judge had also directed the CBCID to file a ‘last report’ before the court stating compliance with the Court’s order to initiate prosecution against Prem Kumar.
[48. To sum up:
(i)The first respondent, namely, the State of Tamil Nadu is directed to launch prosecution through C.B.C.I.D. against Premkumar, former D.S.P., Special Branch, Nagercoil and Panneerselvam, former D.S.P. of Nagercoil Town, who were involved in the offences relating to the illegal custody of the injured persons and torture committed on them, especially on women, viz., witness No.4 Sahaya Rani and witness No.5 Femina Rose.
(ii) On passing suitable orders by the State Government, the C.B.C.I.D. shall record the statement of the injured Femina Rose and register F.I.R. against Premkumar and Panneerselvam, the D.S.Ps. for the appropriate offences and shall record the statements of the other injured persons and other witnesses examined before the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, the Team of Doctors and any other witnesses to be produced and collect other materials, if any, and launch prosecution against the two named police officials by filing the final report before the appropriate Court within three months from the date of receipt of this order.]
The judge has also passed scathing remarks against Prem Kumar in another case which unfortunately for Prem Kumar had come up for hearing before Justice Karpagavinayakam himself earlier in June 2002. The judge wondered how a policeman facing criminal charges and who was directly recruited into the police force as DSP, could accept promotions under false pretexts and also how he could deliberately not inform the High Court of the same. Justice Karpagavinayakam also wondered how, when the Supreme Court had ordered speedy disposal of these cases and when his rank as DSP had been held to be temporary in view of the cases pending against him, the state government could further promote the scum bag to ASP and later to SP.The judge also declared him 'absconder' with non-bailable warrants issued against him. Prem Kumar was directed by the judge to surrender before the sessions court to get the NBW revoked and then to subject himself to the due process of law.
[ 32. It is further noticed from the diary extract that on 23.4.2001, N.B.W. was again issued against the petitioner (A1) and the same has not been executed till date. This shows that the petitioner has no regard for law and for truth. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has made an incorrect and false statement to mislead this Court.
38. The fact that N.B.W. issued against the petitioner is pending for more than one year without execution and the failure of the petitioner to surrender before the Court, seeking for withdrawal of the said warrant and the non-appearance of the accused one after another on every hearing would make it clear that the trial is being dragged on for a number of years only at the instance of the accused and not at the instance of the prosecution party. 41. Therefore, the Director General of Police is directed to give suitable direction to the concerned Superintendent of Police to ensure the presence of all the accused, the police personnel in these cases on the relevant dates so that the trial would be over within the time mentioned above. The petitioner and others against whom N.B.Ws. were issued are directed to surrender before the Court concerned along with the petition to recall the N.B.Ws. On their surrender, the trial Court may recall by imposing suitable conditions to ensure their presence before the Court on all the hearing dates.
33. One other aspect is to be noticed in this context. When the appointment of the petitioner as D.S.P. was challenged in writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.11966 of 1985, by the order dated 22.7.199 4, this Court while referring the Rule 10(a)(iv) which provides that, where it is necessary to appoint an officer against whom an enquiry into allegations of corruption or misconduct is pending, the appointing authority may appoint him temporarily pending enquiry into the charges against him, would hold that the appointment cannot be said to be illegal as the appointment has been made only temporary as the criminal cases against him are pending in the Court of Session.
34. As such, the finding given by this Court in the above writ petition that the appointment is only temporary which is subject to the result in the criminal proceedings. But, it is stated by the petitioner in paragraph 3 of his petition that the petitioner was promoted as Additional Superintendent of Police in the year 1998 and further promoted as Superintendent of Police in the year 1999.
35. There are no details in the petition as to how he was promoted even though his appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police was temporary pending disposal of the criminal cases before the Court of Session. Having obtained the promotion as Superintendent of Police even though his appointment was held to be temporary by this Court, the petitioner instead of bringing to the notice of the writ Court that the order passed by this Court has not been complied with and instead of filing an application for seeking a fresh direction, has approached this Court for the reasons best known to him seeking for quashing alleging that the criminal cases pending against him are unnecessarily dragged on at the instance of Nallakaman with a view to harass the petitioner. This prayer for quashing sought for by the petitioner in this petition would amount to disrespect the orders passed by this Court as well as the Supreme Court earlier.]
Now let us go beyond these horrifying judicial strictures and examine Jayalalithaa’s devilish motives in posting this sleaze as SP Kancheepuram. As the two judgments would indicate, Prem Kumar is known to ill-treat people whom he summons for questioning. He is also known to arrest people and not produce them within 24 hours before a local magistrate as is the law. He is known to physically and verbally abuse these people. He is also known to summon the media and coerce his victims to make ‘confessional’ statements to them. And Prem Kumar’s favourite weapon is always sexual misconduct and threats of rape and/or physical assault.
That an obliging judge in the subordinate courts could actually hand over Pujya Acharya into police custody, into the hands of this scum bag called Prem Kumar takes my breath away. Was not the judge aware of the damning indictment of Prem Kumar by the Madras High Court for violence and physical assault? Had the judge known about Justice Karpagavinayakam’s strictures against Prem Kumar would the judge have still granted police custody of Pujya Acharya to this scum bag? Is there any excuse for the judge not knowing about the Madras High Court’s indictment of Prem Kumar or that the Governor of Tamil Nadu has sanctioned the prosecution of Prem Kumar as directed by the Madras High Court? Or are we to assume that the judge knew about these strictures and nevertheless granted police custody?
When Pujya Acharya’s police custody ended Prem Kumar planted stories in the media about Pujya Acharya having confessed to the crime. There was also this terrible video clipping of Pujya Acharya in the Vellore jail talking in slurred tones, lying supine. It is not difficult to conclude that Pujya Acharya was probably drugged when the video was taken. More to the point, who shot the video? And if this was a police video why was this video ‘released’ to Nakkeeran, a journal as sleazy as Prem Kumar himself? News is, the wife of one of Nakkeeran’s reporters and Prem Kumar’s wife are sisters!
Then we have sordid planted-by-police stories of womanizing and sexual misconduct by Pujya Acharya with one Usha, another Anuradha and yet another Swarnamalya all being dragged and dragging Pujya Acharya through slime. By this time it was obvious that Prem Kumar and his lady boss had no real case against Pujya Acharya and Jayalalithaa’s henchman was only doing what he had been mandated to do – foist cases, obtain confessions under duress and use the media to destroy the reputation of his victims. This was and continues to be Prem Kumar’s modus operandi. The following is the damning indictment of Prem Kumar by Justice Karpagavinayakam again in October 2002.
[It is clear from the observation made by this Court as well as the Supreme Court that if a police officer transgresses the circumscribed limits and illegally exercises his investigatory powers in breach of any statutory provision causing serious prejudice to the personal liberty of a citizen, then the Court on being approached by the person aggrieved shall consider the nature and extent of the breach of the police officer concerned and pass appropriate orders as may be called for without leaving the citizen to the mercy of police echelons, since human dignity is a dear value of our Constitution.
If this sort of inhuman and ill-treatment in the name of interrogation by the police officers, that too at the D.S.P. level is allowed to go on, then there is no protection even to the persons who are innocent. When these atrocities were brought to the notice of this Court, certainly the powers of this Court have got to be exercised to give appropriate orders so that the members of the Law Enforcing Agency will know their limit. The people also would feel and hope that they would be protected as per the rights guaranteed under the Constitution by arms of law through the appropriate orders passed by this Court by invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The role played by the police officers in this case would make this Court to think that these officials have behaved like barbarians without giving any respect to human dignity, that too with the ladies Sahaya Rani and Femina Rose who are regarded as sisters. As a matter of fact, these people were compelled to give statements to Press persons who took video. This Court earlier dealt with the bail application by some of the accused in this case and had an occasion to see the said video in order to show whether those statements were obtained by threat or coercion. On seeing the Video, this Court was unable to come to the conclusion that there was any threat since only some of the portions of the statements were shown to this Court. This Court is unable to understand as to why the Press Reporters were allowed to take Video. Admittedly, the Video was not taken by the Law Enforcing Agency. Strangely, the Superintendent of Police has filed an affidavit before this Court in this writ petition stating that the Video was taken by the Press Persons in spite of the objection raised by the police. This statement of Superintendent of Police cannot be true. When the objection was raised by the police, how the Press Reporters could record statement of these injured persons through Video? In the bail application, this Court was requested by the Public Prosecutor to witness the Video. If such an objection was raised by the police, there was no necessity to keep that Video with them. These are all would show that the police agency wanted to mislead the Court by giving the false particulars by showing the Video.]
Every sane person who saw the video clipping featured on every gloating satellite channel would have asserted that the video was doctored and unnatural in the extreme. They say habitual and hardened criminals always have a signature modus operandi. The course that the Sankararaman murder investigation traversed has Prem Kumar’s fingerprints and signature all over. I have been wondering why Justice Karpagavinayakam has so far not taken suo moto notice of press reports about the course of the case and have Prem Kumar removed from the case in the best interests of truth and justice.
I can even understand that Jayalalithaa, as is her wont, has scant respect for truth or justice or even the law and the judiciary. But I find this absolutely mind-boggling that having launched prosecution against a policeman in compliance with a court order, the state government will then go on to use the same twice damned policeman in an extremely sensitive murder investigation. The following are the details of the Government Order (GO) launching prosecution against Prem Kumar:
[Home (SC) Department. (SC is strictly confidential)
GO # 3D {67} dated 21st May, 2003
Ref. 1: Order dated 3-10-2002 of the High Court of Madras in WP (writ petition) # 15596/97 filed by Thiru John Joseph.
Ref. 2: From the Addl. DGP Crime Branch CID Chennai, letter RC # C6/5/016523/2002 dated 12-4-2003 received with DGP’s letter RC # 3382/231132/CRIME III (2/2002 dated 25-4-2003)
Abstract: Prosecution – police department – Thiru K Prem Kumar, formerly DSP, now SP, Coastal Security Group, Chennai – Allegations of criminal conspiracy and abetment of criminal misconduct – sanction of prosecution under Sec. 197 (1) (b) Cr. PC – accorded]
As seen, the Governor has ordered the state government to prosecute Prem Kumar for criminal conspiracy and criminal misconduct in 2003. It was Jayalalithaa’s government then. So what does it say for her pious protestations about all of us being equal before the law, that the law must take its own course and about the majesty of the law. Above all what does it say about the Assembly of idiots who made passionate speeches about the secular credentials of Prem Kumar who placed the charge sheet against Pujya Acharyas and 26 others at the feet of Lord Varadaraja of Kancheepuram before lodging it with the courts. Not one member of this august Assembly had the wits to demand Prem Kumar’s scalp or Jayalalithaa’s head for his continuance in the TN police force or for Jayalalithaa using him for all the dirty reasons.
For these elected representatives that Prem Kumar placed the charge sheet at the feet of the Lord was more important than the fact that he has been found guilty of barbarism and criminal misconduct by the Madras High Court. Secular charlatans all of them. The next time some ass tells you all that the law is majestic or that the law must take its own course or that all are equal before the law, do take the law into your own hands folks and deal appropriately with these scoundrels. The law will be safer in your hands than in the hands of police men like Prem Kumar or the judge who handed Pujya Acharya into Prem Kumar’s police custody.
[42. Before parting with this case, it shall be mentioned that there are very serious allegations against the petitioner, who is stated to have severely beaten the Ex-serviceman and his wife, a Teacher at the police station causing grievous hurt. It is shocking to see from the complaints of Nallakaman and the R.D.O., the petitioner disrobed the saree of the woman Teacher at the police station and attempted to remove her Thali (Mangalya Sutra). It is further stated that she was brutally beaten and the second respondent with the handcuffs was taken outside the police station and was paraded up to the Bus Stand and in the presence of the public, he was continuously beaten. Only on the agitation of the public, the District Collector intervened, as a result of which, an enquiry was conducted by the R.D.O. after examining 83 witnesses.
43. If these allegations are true and proved before the Court of law, it would be shameful to find that a person like the petitioner has been allowed to work in the Police Department. In the light of the very serious allegation, the trial Court should see that the trial is to go on preferably on day-to-day basis and the same is finished of within the time schedule.
44. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court by the order dated 7.11.19 89 would specifically observe that all the three cases to be tried together. This Court also by the order dated 22.7.1994 directed the trial Court to dispose of the matters on or before 31.3.1995. Despite these directions, the trial Court was not allowed to be proceeded with. Therefore, this Court is constrained to give a fresh direction hoping that at least the direction given now would be complied with.]
And that is what we want to know from the CM and the DGP. Have they complied with the court order? And if they haven’t why can we not demand their removal? More to the point, why is the TN Assembly, specifically the DMK, the BJP and all other anti-Jayalalithaa parties and politicians silent on the issue? What are we to make of it? That they think playing the ‘secular’ card will win them more votes than standing on the side of righteousness, probity in public life, and respecting Hindu sensibilities? It would seem so. And Hindus have only themselves to blame that Indian polity doesn’t think it needs them for survival.
17th February, 2005.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Indian Church Strengthening Political Ties with Communists
Wednesday February 16 2005 10:09 IST
THRISSUR
newindpress.com
When CPM’s Lonappan Nambadan MP on Saturday attended the meeting of the Irinjalakkuda Catholic Diocesan Pastoral Council as a member, it was a sign of the Church opening its doors a bit more wide to the CPM.
Nambadan pegs his nomination to the Council by Bishop Mar James Pazhayattil on the changed equations between the two institutions and the ‘‘decentralisation’’ that has taken place within the Church.
‘‘This is perhaps the first time that a CPM Parliament member is being nominated. It further proves that the days of the Church’s blind anti- Communist - pro-Congress attitude are over. The Church now has an openness which can acknowledge good deeds regardless of political colour,’’ Nambadan told this website’s newspaper.
The Church has been ‘decentralised’ and the faithful have more voice today, said Nambadan, who was minister on two occasions and an MLA for 25 years.
The Pastoral Council of the Syro-Malabar Church is an advisory committee to the Bishop on matters religious and material.
‘‘The suggestions of the council are not binding. But to be nominated is an honour,’’ Nambadan, who admits to be a regular church-goer, said.
He is not a novice at the Pastoral Council either.
He was a member of the council of the unified Thrissur Diocese back in 1977.
‘‘I was with the UDF then, though. But at the time an LDF MLA - not even a CPM MLA - would have found the council out of bounds. The fact that I contested under the official party symbol and still could find a place on council proves things have changed,’’ he says.
Nambadan points to his thumping victory over Padmaja Venugopal (Congress) in the last Lok Sabha elections as another potent sign of the traditionally-pro - Congress-faithful accepting the CPM.
‘‘Mukundapuram was a constituency where K.Karunakaran won a majority of 52,000 votes. But in the last elections, we had a majority of 1.17 lakh votes, the lion’s share of which came from the traditional Christian vote bank of the Congress,’’ Nambadan says.
However, Nambadan had to cut short his attendance at the first Council meeting on Saturday due to the death of CPI leader and former Minister Krishnan Kaniyamparambil.
THRISSUR
newindpress.com
When CPM’s Lonappan Nambadan MP on Saturday attended the meeting of the Irinjalakkuda Catholic Diocesan Pastoral Council as a member, it was a sign of the Church opening its doors a bit more wide to the CPM.
Nambadan pegs his nomination to the Council by Bishop Mar James Pazhayattil on the changed equations between the two institutions and the ‘‘decentralisation’’ that has taken place within the Church.
‘‘This is perhaps the first time that a CPM Parliament member is being nominated. It further proves that the days of the Church’s blind anti- Communist - pro-Congress attitude are over. The Church now has an openness which can acknowledge good deeds regardless of political colour,’’ Nambadan told this website’s newspaper.
The Church has been ‘decentralised’ and the faithful have more voice today, said Nambadan, who was minister on two occasions and an MLA for 25 years.
The Pastoral Council of the Syro-Malabar Church is an advisory committee to the Bishop on matters religious and material.
‘‘The suggestions of the council are not binding. But to be nominated is an honour,’’ Nambadan, who admits to be a regular church-goer, said.
He is not a novice at the Pastoral Council either.
He was a member of the council of the unified Thrissur Diocese back in 1977.
‘‘I was with the UDF then, though. But at the time an LDF MLA - not even a CPM MLA - would have found the council out of bounds. The fact that I contested under the official party symbol and still could find a place on council proves things have changed,’’ he says.
Nambadan points to his thumping victory over Padmaja Venugopal (Congress) in the last Lok Sabha elections as another potent sign of the traditionally-pro - Congress-faithful accepting the CPM.
‘‘Mukundapuram was a constituency where K.Karunakaran won a majority of 52,000 votes. But in the last elections, we had a majority of 1.17 lakh votes, the lion’s share of which came from the traditional Christian vote bank of the Congress,’’ Nambadan says.
However, Nambadan had to cut short his attendance at the first Council meeting on Saturday due to the death of CPI leader and former Minister Krishnan Kaniyamparambil.
"I am not afraid of anyone" - S.Gurumurthy
Then Came the Case
"The Bitter Pill the Police had to Swallow" [Txlator's note: literally, the asafoeitda ('hing') that irrated the police's eyes]
Vishnu Kanchi police have filed a case against noted journalist S. Gurumurty. 'Refusal to give revealing information about the Sankarraman murder case', 'Refusal to respond to a legally appointed enquiry officer's question, conveying false evidence to the Government' - the case has been registered under these 3 sections.
Convener of the Swadeshi Jagran Manch, Gurumurthy is also in touch with a number of Hindu organizations. Special police interrogated him on December 9th in connection with Jayendrar [Swamigal]'s case,
Gurumurthy sent a lawyer notice to SP [Premkumar] and Additional SP [Shaktivel] asking for the video shots of that interrogation taken at the Forest Bungalow. With that, he sent Rs 1000 also as cost for copying the video. 'After bringing me in for questioning, and taking video without permission, the pictures and details of that interrogation were given to journals [which is] wrong under IPC 166. [Show cause as to] why I should not proceed in court against you?" asked Gurumurthy in that notice.
In this circumstance, came the case. Gurumurthy in hiding! Special Force sent to find him! - These are the rumors emerging from Kanchi.
At this stage, we contacted Gurumurthy on his cell phone.
"I haven't disappeared anywhere. I am in Mumbai on work. I am going to Delhi from here and I will be in Chennai at month end. In the meanwhile, if the Kanchi Special Police want to talk to me, they are free to do so. I have informed them through my lawyer and even given them my cell phone number.
With this introduction, Gurumurthy got ready to take our questions.
What did you do so as to cause the police to call you for interrogation in Jayendrar's case?
G: I look at any problem from an alternate perspective. In the same way, I looked at Jayendrar's arrest matter also. I wrote my opinions in journals like Indian Express, Thuglak, etc..
In this murder case, most journals are putting out only the information spread by the police -- that is my primary assessment.
In that deluge of news, the few articles I wrote were like a little drop [of asofoetida or 'hing'- a strong astringent spice] in the ocean. That bitter pill is what the police are having trouble swallowing. [Translator's note: literally, that 'hing' is what is irritating the police's eyes].
I emphasized in my articles that the police should investigate the Sankarraman murder from all angles. The police itself says that Sankarraman wrote that if there was any harm to [his] life, the Sankaramatam would be responsible. How would the Sankaramatam or its Madaadipathis conspire to murder a person who had already identified them as an enemy in advance? - That is the logical question I raised. Couldn't anybody who knew of this public feud have committed the murder, thinking they would easily escape punishment? The police did not look at the case from this angle at all - This was the second question I raised.
When police investigate a murder case, they have to do it with an open mind, looking at all different angles, without ignoring any fact. Especially in a criminal investigation, police have to follow this.
But in the Sankarraman murder case, police are sticking to only the angle they want - and only trying to prove the version of the case they already have [in mind]. As a journalist and a citizen who cares about the welfare of society, I have full freedom to express this opinion. I have written clearly in the article I wrote in Thuglak. But the police is accusing me of weakening the Sankarraman murder case! (a short pause) - Maybe Premkumar likes my sharp approach to the case and wants to keep chatting with me over and over, so probably that is why he is inviting me back to Kanchi by connecting me to the case - (at the other end, a loud laugh!)
What did they ask you during interrogation in the Forest Bungalow? Isn't it said that you tried to hide information?
G: Initially, in the summons they sent me, they said 'Since you write so keenly about the Sankarraman murder case, you must know some details about the case. That's why, by law, we want to interrogate you.'
I appeared on December 9th in person - Premkumar talked to me. We can't say there was any interrogation because what took place that day was only an argument between me and the police.
Police know full well that I do not know either about the victim or who committed the murder. That is why they did not ask me any questions about this. They asked me again and again about the questions I raised in my articles. I don't understand what it is they claim I hid!
Not only that, SP Premkumar, when he called me for interrogation, told me off the record about some difficulties in the police interrogation. I did not write about any of that.
Based on what did you say the murder investigation is not going on the right way?
The police's initial investigation said that money distributed to the murderers came from the ICICI Mutt account. For that, police could not show any evidence to document that, either directly or through the bank. When it became known the money wasn't taken out from that bank, they began hunting around from bank to bank.
When the Supreme Court asked did Jayendrar have any direct connection to the murder, for that [question], the police side could not give an answer. On the basis of these discrepancies only, the Supreme Court granted bail to Jayendrar.
After starting to investigate the Madaadipathis in a murder case, simultaneously, sleazy rumors were started up about women issues.
I want to tell one truth in this matter. Writer Anuradha Ramanan started stirring up complaints that Jayendrar tried to misbehave with her privately.
But last year, March 21st, in a meeting arranged by Kanchi Kamakoti Sankara Medical Trust in Rathnagiriswar Temple in Besantnagar, the same Anuradha Ramanan has spoken in that meeting praising Jayendrar to the heavens. 'I was suffering from paralysis. If I am able to walk and talk before you, the reason is Jayendrar only,' - like this she talked. Many highly placed people heard this with their own ears.
An Elder whom she had respected 8 months before, today, the same woman is suddenly making shocking accusations against. What is the background behind this? Did someone instigate her against Jayendrar? This is enough to say the police investigation is not going on the proper path.
Do you think there might be other reasons to file a case against you?
G: Somebody might have thought I am giving legal opinions to Jayendrar who is out on bail and staying in Kalavai. Or polic emight have thought I could take some next intent step regarding this case.
So far, the police have not responded to the lawyer notice [I sent them]. This is the current situation.
Fundamentally, I am not afraid of anyone. I am not hesitant to face anything legally. Anyone who knows about my past will understand this. For the time being, I have given a fitting response to the police. After I come back to Chennai, the next actions will follow.
"The Bitter Pill the Police had to Swallow" [Txlator's note: literally, the asafoeitda ('hing') that irrated the police's eyes]
Vishnu Kanchi police have filed a case against noted journalist S. Gurumurty. 'Refusal to give revealing information about the Sankarraman murder case', 'Refusal to respond to a legally appointed enquiry officer's question, conveying false evidence to the Government' - the case has been registered under these 3 sections.
Convener of the Swadeshi Jagran Manch, Gurumurthy is also in touch with a number of Hindu organizations. Special police interrogated him on December 9th in connection with Jayendrar [Swamigal]'s case,
Gurumurthy sent a lawyer notice to SP [Premkumar] and Additional SP [Shaktivel] asking for the video shots of that interrogation taken at the Forest Bungalow. With that, he sent Rs 1000 also as cost for copying the video. 'After bringing me in for questioning, and taking video without permission, the pictures and details of that interrogation were given to journals [which is] wrong under IPC 166. [Show cause as to] why I should not proceed in court against you?" asked Gurumurthy in that notice.
In this circumstance, came the case. Gurumurthy in hiding! Special Force sent to find him! - These are the rumors emerging from Kanchi.
At this stage, we contacted Gurumurthy on his cell phone.
"I haven't disappeared anywhere. I am in Mumbai on work. I am going to Delhi from here and I will be in Chennai at month end. In the meanwhile, if the Kanchi Special Police want to talk to me, they are free to do so. I have informed them through my lawyer and even given them my cell phone number.
With this introduction, Gurumurthy got ready to take our questions.
What did you do so as to cause the police to call you for interrogation in Jayendrar's case?
G: I look at any problem from an alternate perspective. In the same way, I looked at Jayendrar's arrest matter also. I wrote my opinions in journals like Indian Express, Thuglak, etc..
In this murder case, most journals are putting out only the information spread by the police -- that is my primary assessment.
In that deluge of news, the few articles I wrote were like a little drop [of asofoetida or 'hing'- a strong astringent spice] in the ocean. That bitter pill is what the police are having trouble swallowing. [Translator's note: literally, that 'hing' is what is irritating the police's eyes].
I emphasized in my articles that the police should investigate the Sankarraman murder from all angles. The police itself says that Sankarraman wrote that if there was any harm to [his] life, the Sankaramatam would be responsible. How would the Sankaramatam or its Madaadipathis conspire to murder a person who had already identified them as an enemy in advance? - That is the logical question I raised. Couldn't anybody who knew of this public feud have committed the murder, thinking they would easily escape punishment? The police did not look at the case from this angle at all - This was the second question I raised.
When police investigate a murder case, they have to do it with an open mind, looking at all different angles, without ignoring any fact. Especially in a criminal investigation, police have to follow this.
But in the Sankarraman murder case, police are sticking to only the angle they want - and only trying to prove the version of the case they already have [in mind]. As a journalist and a citizen who cares about the welfare of society, I have full freedom to express this opinion. I have written clearly in the article I wrote in Thuglak. But the police is accusing me of weakening the Sankarraman murder case! (a short pause) - Maybe Premkumar likes my sharp approach to the case and wants to keep chatting with me over and over, so probably that is why he is inviting me back to Kanchi by connecting me to the case - (at the other end, a loud laugh!)
What did they ask you during interrogation in the Forest Bungalow? Isn't it said that you tried to hide information?
G: Initially, in the summons they sent me, they said 'Since you write so keenly about the Sankarraman murder case, you must know some details about the case. That's why, by law, we want to interrogate you.'
I appeared on December 9th in person - Premkumar talked to me. We can't say there was any interrogation because what took place that day was only an argument between me and the police.
Police know full well that I do not know either about the victim or who committed the murder. That is why they did not ask me any questions about this. They asked me again and again about the questions I raised in my articles. I don't understand what it is they claim I hid!
Not only that, SP Premkumar, when he called me for interrogation, told me off the record about some difficulties in the police interrogation. I did not write about any of that.
Based on what did you say the murder investigation is not going on the right way?
The police's initial investigation said that money distributed to the murderers came from the ICICI Mutt account. For that, police could not show any evidence to document that, either directly or through the bank. When it became known the money wasn't taken out from that bank, they began hunting around from bank to bank.
When the Supreme Court asked did Jayendrar have any direct connection to the murder, for that [question], the police side could not give an answer. On the basis of these discrepancies only, the Supreme Court granted bail to Jayendrar.
After starting to investigate the Madaadipathis in a murder case, simultaneously, sleazy rumors were started up about women issues.
I want to tell one truth in this matter. Writer Anuradha Ramanan started stirring up complaints that Jayendrar tried to misbehave with her privately.
But last year, March 21st, in a meeting arranged by Kanchi Kamakoti Sankara Medical Trust in Rathnagiriswar Temple in Besantnagar, the same Anuradha Ramanan has spoken in that meeting praising Jayendrar to the heavens. 'I was suffering from paralysis. If I am able to walk and talk before you, the reason is Jayendrar only,' - like this she talked. Many highly placed people heard this with their own ears.
An Elder whom she had respected 8 months before, today, the same woman is suddenly making shocking accusations against. What is the background behind this? Did someone instigate her against Jayendrar? This is enough to say the police investigation is not going on the proper path.
Do you think there might be other reasons to file a case against you?
G: Somebody might have thought I am giving legal opinions to Jayendrar who is out on bail and staying in Kalavai. Or polic emight have thought I could take some next intent step regarding this case.
So far, the police have not responded to the lawyer notice [I sent them]. This is the current situation.
Fundamentally, I am not afraid of anyone. I am not hesitant to face anything legally. Anyone who knows about my past will understand this. For the time being, I have given a fitting response to the police. After I come back to Chennai, the next actions will follow.
Kanchi seer will prove his innocence: Hindu Munnani
[India News]: Kalavai,Feb 16 : Kanchi Seer Jayendra Saraswathi will come out unscathed and prove his innocence in court in the cases against him, Hindu Munnani leader Rama Gopalan said today.
He told reporters here after a two-hour meeting with the Sankaracharya that 'The Seer is clean and will come out unscathed. Crores of people also believed that he will come out uscathed." After being absolved of the charges, Jayendra Sarswathi will "guide" society, he said.
He justified the boycott of courts by advocates in Kancheepuram. "It is inhuman to threaten advocates," he said.
On the Special investigation team filing a case against columnist Gurumurthy, he said filing cases against media personnel would prove to be "counterproductive".
He said his organisation would conduct a yagna at Rameswaram for three days from February 21 for world peace. He called on the seer to seek his blessings for the yagna, he said. Pti
He told reporters here after a two-hour meeting with the Sankaracharya that 'The Seer is clean and will come out unscathed. Crores of people also believed that he will come out uscathed." After being absolved of the charges, Jayendra Sarswathi will "guide" society, he said.
He justified the boycott of courts by advocates in Kancheepuram. "It is inhuman to threaten advocates," he said.
On the Special investigation team filing a case against columnist Gurumurthy, he said filing cases against media personnel would prove to be "counterproductive".
He said his organisation would conduct a yagna at Rameswaram for three days from February 21 for world peace. He called on the seer to seek his blessings for the yagna, he said. Pti
Detention of mutt manager violates directive
Thursday, 17 February , 2005, 17:24
Rajapalayam: Detention of Kanchi Mutt manager Sundaresa Iyer and Raghu, brother of junior Sankaracharya Vijayendra Saraswathi, both accused in the Sankararaman murder case, under the Goondas Act appears to be a clear violation of a Tamil Nadu government’s recent directive on detentions under the stringent law.
The circular, issued in January to the district collectors and superintendents of police, asked them to ensure that while ordering detention of a person under the Act, there should be at least one "adverse" case or more cases against him/her other than the ground case.
The circular had been issued in the light of observations made by the Supreme Court which held in a case that a solitary instance of robbery, as mentioned in the grounds for detention under the Goondas Act in a criminal case, was not relevant for sustaining the order of detention for the purpose of preventing the persons from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, an official told PTI on condition of anonymity.
Besides, the advisory board, empowered to review the detentions under the Act, had taken a stand that for the solitary offence under Section 302 of the IPC (murder), the normal law would take care and, therefore, there may not be any detention under the said Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 against such individuals as "Goondas."
The government had revoked some detention orders also following the above advice of the board, the official said.
Rajapalayam: Detention of Kanchi Mutt manager Sundaresa Iyer and Raghu, brother of junior Sankaracharya Vijayendra Saraswathi, both accused in the Sankararaman murder case, under the Goondas Act appears to be a clear violation of a Tamil Nadu government’s recent directive on detentions under the stringent law.
The circular, issued in January to the district collectors and superintendents of police, asked them to ensure that while ordering detention of a person under the Act, there should be at least one "adverse" case or more cases against him/her other than the ground case.
The circular had been issued in the light of observations made by the Supreme Court which held in a case that a solitary instance of robbery, as mentioned in the grounds for detention under the Goondas Act in a criminal case, was not relevant for sustaining the order of detention for the purpose of preventing the persons from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, an official told PTI on condition of anonymity.
Besides, the advisory board, empowered to review the detentions under the Act, had taken a stand that for the solitary offence under Section 302 of the IPC (murder), the normal law would take care and, therefore, there may not be any detention under the said Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 against such individuals as "Goondas."
The government had revoked some detention orders also following the above advice of the board, the official said.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Truth, confessions and videotape
In our justice system due process is becoming the punishment
Posted online: Thursday, February 17, 2005
PRATAP BHANU MEHTA
Anara Gupta, beauty queen. S.A.R. Geelani, academic. Shankaracharya, spiritual leader. Vicky Thakur, suspected kidnapper. Jammu, Delhi, Chennai, Patna. Four lives, four professions, four cities, four tales in our justice system. The crimes they were accused of range from murder to things that should not even be a crime. Are they guilty or innocent? Whether or not they are has become irrelevant. Their legal status became a sideshow in a macabre drama, orchestrated by the police. If science exonerated Anara, as it apparently did in the first lab tests, we should not worry. There can always be another lab test. Confessions may not be judicially admissible. But the police can extract them from a Geelani or a Shankaracharya.
The Shankracharya may or may not be guilty. But police conduct in the case is certainly not above board: press leaks are legion and the strategy now seems to have moved away from concentrating on the original evidence to drowning the benighted pontiff in a fog of moral turpitude. Even those who are criticising the police are being taken in for questioning. Then there is the extraordinary case of Geelani, the man who has twice defied death. Everything about the latest attack on him remains murky. Many, including Geelani himself, suspect a police hand in the matter. Those who are predisposed against him feign a naivete and ask what possible motive the police could have to kill him at this point? Those who are convinced of his innocence cannot contemplate any other possibility. Well, we can always have the CBI find the truth. Which CBI? The very same one that turns cases on and off under political guidance? Anara’s case appears to have been nothing more than a venial police vendetta. And then there is the fate of Vicky Thakur, suspected of kidnapping Kisalaya. In all probability guilty. But like many, he will never have his day in court. Another suspect killed, like in those encounter killings where it is easier to bring death than justice.
Perhaps the courts will help us sort out the issues. But then we can always appeal any decision. The extent of bias in courts of law is a debatable matter. But isn’t acceptance of court decisions itself becoming a function of our politics? We are angry with the courts when politicians are let off the hook, when alleged perpetrators of riots are exonerated on technicalities. Some applaud the court when it exonerates Geelani, others think it has gone soft on terrorism. The very idea of guilt or innocence, or of truth or falsehood, that lies beyond politics and prejudice and has become suspect. We don’t believe it, because we don’t believe that our public institutions will deliver these determinations impartially. Courts and Confessions, Videos and Investigations, Facts and Depositions, Commissions and Evidence are opportunities for obfuscation rather than sources of clarity.
This crisis of credibility has created a vacuum: motives can be freely uncovered, loopholes can be found in any theory and facts can be created. Just recall Tehelka investigations and their aftermath. The loop of truth, lies and videotape got so circuitous that we stopped caring. In this melange of postmodernism, what matters is what you can get away with. Information is an instrument in a propaganda war, not a means to truth.
Even judicial commissions can now apparently produce rival versions of the truth, leaving the citizens more bewildered. The bewilderment produces two sentiments, both dangerous for democracy. In some it produces a sense of entitlement to whatever you want to believe. When in doubt might as well go with your predispositions. Since no institution has the credibility to refute them, you might as well consider yourself entitled to them. Ironically, the police can now itself become a victim of this disposition. We are now free to pronounce the police guilty or innocent before the facts are in! Others are reconciled to uncertainty. Who really knows? We throw up our hands. This is itself a dangerous symptom in a demoracy, because it lets prejudices go unchecked, facts remain unverified. A corrosive skepticism is not a healthy prelude to uncovering the truth, it simply lets the prejudiced get away with their feigned certainties. It signals the death of outrage.
But most of all, what the four cases named above produce is an overpowering sense of vulnerability. You need not have any empathy with the accused to wonder: should you happen to be accused at some point, what will be your fate? Who will draw the line between guilt and innocence? Between fabrication and reality? Will it be trial by public opinion, with the police orchestrating what evidence gets out and what does not? But even more urgently: when will the investigation shade over into persecution? When will the objective be determination of the truth? Or will the objective be to break the accused? Or will it be harassment? What is a CBI investigation really about? Innocent or Guilty, the police will have the power to scar your life. They may not always do it, but they often have. Now they will get away with it, not because they use force, but because we are too uncertain to care or to believe.
There is a myth that lawlessness has increased because rates of conviction in India are low. This is a myth because it assumes that punishment has something to do with conviction. We are moving to a justice system, where in subtle and not so subtle forms, punishment can be meted out to you even when you have not been convicted. Arundhati Roy’s political judgement may not always be spot on, but her insight into the justice system deserves to be immortalised. In India, we do not get punishment after due process. Due process is the punishment. After all, aren’t there more than seven million arrests a year, a thousand undertrials in prison who have already been there more than five years? And what about the scourge of custodial deaths, a phenomenon every civilised police force has managed to abolish. Perhaps Pappu Yadav is an apt symbol of the inversion of values that corrosive skepticism allows: the jail as a secure rest house, freedom as fraught with danger, as Geelani has found out. At whose discretion we get justice, who knows.
Posted online: Thursday, February 17, 2005
PRATAP BHANU MEHTA
Anara Gupta, beauty queen. S.A.R. Geelani, academic. Shankaracharya, spiritual leader. Vicky Thakur, suspected kidnapper. Jammu, Delhi, Chennai, Patna. Four lives, four professions, four cities, four tales in our justice system. The crimes they were accused of range from murder to things that should not even be a crime. Are they guilty or innocent? Whether or not they are has become irrelevant. Their legal status became a sideshow in a macabre drama, orchestrated by the police. If science exonerated Anara, as it apparently did in the first lab tests, we should not worry. There can always be another lab test. Confessions may not be judicially admissible. But the police can extract them from a Geelani or a Shankaracharya.
The Shankracharya may or may not be guilty. But police conduct in the case is certainly not above board: press leaks are legion and the strategy now seems to have moved away from concentrating on the original evidence to drowning the benighted pontiff in a fog of moral turpitude. Even those who are criticising the police are being taken in for questioning. Then there is the extraordinary case of Geelani, the man who has twice defied death. Everything about the latest attack on him remains murky. Many, including Geelani himself, suspect a police hand in the matter. Those who are predisposed against him feign a naivete and ask what possible motive the police could have to kill him at this point? Those who are convinced of his innocence cannot contemplate any other possibility. Well, we can always have the CBI find the truth. Which CBI? The very same one that turns cases on and off under political guidance? Anara’s case appears to have been nothing more than a venial police vendetta. And then there is the fate of Vicky Thakur, suspected of kidnapping Kisalaya. In all probability guilty. But like many, he will never have his day in court. Another suspect killed, like in those encounter killings where it is easier to bring death than justice.
Perhaps the courts will help us sort out the issues. But then we can always appeal any decision. The extent of bias in courts of law is a debatable matter. But isn’t acceptance of court decisions itself becoming a function of our politics? We are angry with the courts when politicians are let off the hook, when alleged perpetrators of riots are exonerated on technicalities. Some applaud the court when it exonerates Geelani, others think it has gone soft on terrorism. The very idea of guilt or innocence, or of truth or falsehood, that lies beyond politics and prejudice and has become suspect. We don’t believe it, because we don’t believe that our public institutions will deliver these determinations impartially. Courts and Confessions, Videos and Investigations, Facts and Depositions, Commissions and Evidence are opportunities for obfuscation rather than sources of clarity.
This crisis of credibility has created a vacuum: motives can be freely uncovered, loopholes can be found in any theory and facts can be created. Just recall Tehelka investigations and their aftermath. The loop of truth, lies and videotape got so circuitous that we stopped caring. In this melange of postmodernism, what matters is what you can get away with. Information is an instrument in a propaganda war, not a means to truth.
Even judicial commissions can now apparently produce rival versions of the truth, leaving the citizens more bewildered. The bewilderment produces two sentiments, both dangerous for democracy. In some it produces a sense of entitlement to whatever you want to believe. When in doubt might as well go with your predispositions. Since no institution has the credibility to refute them, you might as well consider yourself entitled to them. Ironically, the police can now itself become a victim of this disposition. We are now free to pronounce the police guilty or innocent before the facts are in! Others are reconciled to uncertainty. Who really knows? We throw up our hands. This is itself a dangerous symptom in a demoracy, because it lets prejudices go unchecked, facts remain unverified. A corrosive skepticism is not a healthy prelude to uncovering the truth, it simply lets the prejudiced get away with their feigned certainties. It signals the death of outrage.
But most of all, what the four cases named above produce is an overpowering sense of vulnerability. You need not have any empathy with the accused to wonder: should you happen to be accused at some point, what will be your fate? Who will draw the line between guilt and innocence? Between fabrication and reality? Will it be trial by public opinion, with the police orchestrating what evidence gets out and what does not? But even more urgently: when will the investigation shade over into persecution? When will the objective be determination of the truth? Or will the objective be to break the accused? Or will it be harassment? What is a CBI investigation really about? Innocent or Guilty, the police will have the power to scar your life. They may not always do it, but they often have. Now they will get away with it, not because they use force, but because we are too uncertain to care or to believe.
There is a myth that lawlessness has increased because rates of conviction in India are low. This is a myth because it assumes that punishment has something to do with conviction. We are moving to a justice system, where in subtle and not so subtle forms, punishment can be meted out to you even when you have not been convicted. Arundhati Roy’s political judgement may not always be spot on, but her insight into the justice system deserves to be immortalised. In India, we do not get punishment after due process. Due process is the punishment. After all, aren’t there more than seven million arrests a year, a thousand undertrials in prison who have already been there more than five years? And what about the scourge of custodial deaths, a phenomenon every civilised police force has managed to abolish. Perhaps Pappu Yadav is an apt symbol of the inversion of values that corrosive skepticism allows: the jail as a secure rest house, freedom as fraught with danger, as Geelani has found out. At whose discretion we get justice, who knows.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Premkumar admits Police Action is Retaliatory!
Sankarraman Murder Case: Why a case against Auditor Gurumurthy? – Superintendent Premkumar interview
Chennai, Feb 1 “During interrogation, Auditor Gurumurthy has given wrong information to divert the case [investigation] and he has refused to tell us about the real culprits and he has also given us false information” – Additional SP Shaktivel has complained to Kanchi First Judicial Magistrate.
[Shaktivel] also gave the interrogation video to the Magistrate, who viewed it. Then, he ordered the police to file an FIR. On that basis, Vishnu Kanchi police have registered a case against Gurumurthy under Sections 176 (Preventing a Government Officer from doing his duty), 179 (refusing to answer a Government official’s question), 191 (giving false information to help criminals) and 193 (punishment for those who aid the criminal in 191). Under these sections, they [police] have registered the case.
Regarding this, the Kanchi District SP Premkumar said: “When Auditor Gurumurthy appeared for police interrogation, he said that Rajini and Kathiravan are not the criminals. Moreover, he also sent a check for Rs1000 to the Special Police team to make him a copy of the video and send it to him. He also said it was not legal to call him for interrogation and he sent me a lawyer notice demanding an apology!
After this, we [Special Police] complained to the 1st Judicial Magistrate about the false information he gave to the police. Finding a basis for the complaint, the Magistrate ordered the Vishnu Kanchi police to register the case.
In this case, we have included 4 witnesses, including the editor of the journal that published Gurumurthy’s article and the administrator [of that journal].”
This is what [Premkumar] said.
We got information that Auditor Gurumurthy is at present in Mumbai. So, the Special Police have rushed to Mumbai* to arrest him.
In regards to this [case], Gurumurthy yesterday released a statement: “The Special Police Team has indulged in intimidatory tactics”, he complained. They were spreading wrong rumors about the opinions he expressed during the interrogation. “So I am not going to back down from my decision to file a case against them.”
In the meanwhile, his lawyer Mahesh Jethmalani has sent a letter to Police Inspector Mohanavelu, in which he said Gurumurthy [was] not in Tamil Nadu. He [was] returning to Chennai on the 26th. If police needed to contact him, they could use Gurumurthy’s cell phone or they could contact him [Jethmalani].
* * *
*[So, boys, who's got the keys to the Cessna?];)
[Editor notes: It is rather ironic that the TN Govt is charging Gurumurthy under Sec 176 and 178. These are the very sections of the Indian Evidence Act that would cover a State Govt's failure to respond to a notice from the NHRC.
Yet, according to press reports, the State of Tamil Nadu rejected that the NHRC had any authority under these sections to demand any answers from them!]
Chennai, Feb 1 “During interrogation, Auditor Gurumurthy has given wrong information to divert the case [investigation] and he has refused to tell us about the real culprits and he has also given us false information” – Additional SP Shaktivel has complained to Kanchi First Judicial Magistrate.
[Shaktivel] also gave the interrogation video to the Magistrate, who viewed it. Then, he ordered the police to file an FIR. On that basis, Vishnu Kanchi police have registered a case against Gurumurthy under Sections 176 (Preventing a Government Officer from doing his duty), 179 (refusing to answer a Government official’s question), 191 (giving false information to help criminals) and 193 (punishment for those who aid the criminal in 191). Under these sections, they [police] have registered the case.
Regarding this, the Kanchi District SP Premkumar said: “When Auditor Gurumurthy appeared for police interrogation, he said that Rajini and Kathiravan are not the criminals. Moreover, he also sent a check for Rs1000 to the Special Police team to make him a copy of the video and send it to him. He also said it was not legal to call him for interrogation and he sent me a lawyer notice demanding an apology!
After this, we [Special Police] complained to the 1st Judicial Magistrate about the false information he gave to the police. Finding a basis for the complaint, the Magistrate ordered the Vishnu Kanchi police to register the case.
In this case, we have included 4 witnesses, including the editor of the journal that published Gurumurthy’s article and the administrator [of that journal].”
This is what [Premkumar] said.
We got information that Auditor Gurumurthy is at present in Mumbai. So, the Special Police have rushed to Mumbai* to arrest him.
In regards to this [case], Gurumurthy yesterday released a statement: “The Special Police Team has indulged in intimidatory tactics”, he complained. They were spreading wrong rumors about the opinions he expressed during the interrogation. “So I am not going to back down from my decision to file a case against them.”
In the meanwhile, his lawyer Mahesh Jethmalani has sent a letter to Police Inspector Mohanavelu, in which he said Gurumurthy [was] not in Tamil Nadu. He [was] returning to Chennai on the 26th. If police needed to contact him, they could use Gurumurthy’s cell phone or they could contact him [Jethmalani].
* * *
*[So, boys, who's got the keys to the Cessna?];)
[Editor notes: It is rather ironic that the TN Govt is charging Gurumurthy under Sec 176 and 178. These are the very sections of the Indian Evidence Act that would cover a State Govt's failure to respond to a notice from the NHRC.
Yet, according to press reports, the State of Tamil Nadu rejected that the NHRC had any authority under these sections to demand any answers from them!]
Her Police are now after Gurumurthy: They have filed a case against him
Adapted, courtesy: TNIE, Feb. 13 & 14.
Jayalalithaa’s police have registered an FIR against Swadeshi Jagaran Manch convenor and columnist S. Gurumurthy under three Sections of the IPC at the Vishnu Kanchi police station on the directions of Kanchipuram judicial Magistrate-I G. Uthamaraj, on representation from Sakthivelu, the Investigating Officer in the Sankararaman case.
Gurumurthy had, on receipt of summons, appeared for questioning by the Kanchi SIT in connection with four articles he had written in ‘The New Indian Express’. Subsequently, he had sent a notice to the police on the reported contents of his statements to SIT. The filing of the FIR is a follow up to these.
Reacting to the reports of FIR against him for purported offences like not cooperating with the police and giving false information, Gurumurthy said in a statement from Mumbai, “if these reports are true, I tern these efforts as ridiculous.” Expressing surprise that police had spread rumours about the cases even before he was served with the summons, he said, “I would like to state that these intimidatory tacks would not deter me from pursuing the proposes case against SIT officials for leaking misleading contents about my statements made to them at the time they examined me.”
In a communication faxed to Mohanavelu, DSP of Vishnu Kanchi Police Station and ADSP Sakthivelu of the SIT investigating the Sankararaman murder case, Gurumurthy’s counsel Mahesh Jethmalani said his client was in Mumbai in connection with extremely professional commitments scheduled much in advance.
Stating that Gurumurthy would be outside Tami Nadu for the next two weeks, he said, on February 26, he will be available in Tamil Nadu at his normal place of residence in Chennai. He also furnished Gurumurthy’s mobile phone number.
Gurumurthy’s counsel seeks copy of video from Police
On Feb. 13, the counsel for Sri S. Gurumurthy sent a notice to the Special Investigating Team investigating the Sankararaman case, telling them to provide a copy of the police video of the columnist’s interrogation. In the notice, counsel R. Shankaranarayanan has accused the SIT headed by SP Premkumar of leaking information about the interrogation to a Tamil magazine with a view to causing injury to not only to his client but also Sri Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal.
According to counsel, when Gurumurthy was interrogated on Feb. 9 at Kancheepuram, he had not objected to the video recording, though no prior consent had been obtained. Subsequently, he came to know that “Nakkeeran” had carried details of the examination with some statements attributed to him and photographs which could only be from the video taken by the SIT on that day. Under Section 162 CrPC, no statement or any record thereof shall be used for any purpose other than enquiry or trial. Now that the tenet had been violated, it constituted a breach of the law of privacy and hence his client is entitled to proceed against the SIT under the law, the counsel said.
When Gurumurthy had been summoned based on articles he had written on Express, counsel wondered how Nakkeeran could have been exempted from the process. “My client has instructed me to demand a copy of the videotape…and is willing to bear the cost of the same. Unless you give satisfactory explanation for the leakage… my client will be free to take appropriate legal action against (you),” counsel added.
Police issues notice to TNIE and Cho
Manoj Kumar Sonthalia, C & MD of “The New Indian Express” and journalist and MP Cho S. Ramaswamy to have been told to depose as witness before the Kanchi SIT in connection with the case registered against S. Gurumurthy about matters involving the Sankararaman murder case. The SIT initially issued summons, asking them to appear before Kanchi policed. Subsequently, it telephoned them that they need not come. Instead, the team would visit them at their offices and record statements.
Police examine TNIE and Cho
On Feb. 14 the police examined Manoj Kumar Sonthalia, C & MD of “The New Indian Express” and journalist and MP Cho S. Ramaswamy in connection with the case registered against S. Gurumurthy. Following the registration of the case against the columnist by the Vishnu Kanchi police in Kancheepuram district, inspector Mohanavel consecutively came to the offices of both TNIE and Cho and examined the Managing Editor, Manoj Kumar Sonthalia, and the editor of Thuglak, for about an hour each. The police wanted to get some information about the publication of the articles written by Gurumurthy in the newspaper on the Kanchi Sankarachaya case.
The BJP national secretary, L. Ganeshan, has condemned the filing of case against the columnist and convenor of the Swadeshi Jagaran Manch, S. Gurumurthy. He described the police action as anti-democratic, and the charge that Mr. Gurumurthy indulged in diversionary tactics was not acceptable. The police have not proceeded against any journals or those who wrote against the Kanchi Shankara Math or in favour of the police. “Mr. Gurumurthy is one of the few who defended the Math. It is an intimidating act. Every section should condemn any effort of stifling the freedom of the press,” the BJP leader said.
Jayalalithaa’s police have registered an FIR against Swadeshi Jagaran Manch convenor and columnist S. Gurumurthy under three Sections of the IPC at the Vishnu Kanchi police station on the directions of Kanchipuram judicial Magistrate-I G. Uthamaraj, on representation from Sakthivelu, the Investigating Officer in the Sankararaman case.
Gurumurthy had, on receipt of summons, appeared for questioning by the Kanchi SIT in connection with four articles he had written in ‘The New Indian Express’. Subsequently, he had sent a notice to the police on the reported contents of his statements to SIT. The filing of the FIR is a follow up to these.
Reacting to the reports of FIR against him for purported offences like not cooperating with the police and giving false information, Gurumurthy said in a statement from Mumbai, “if these reports are true, I tern these efforts as ridiculous.” Expressing surprise that police had spread rumours about the cases even before he was served with the summons, he said, “I would like to state that these intimidatory tacks would not deter me from pursuing the proposes case against SIT officials for leaking misleading contents about my statements made to them at the time they examined me.”
In a communication faxed to Mohanavelu, DSP of Vishnu Kanchi Police Station and ADSP Sakthivelu of the SIT investigating the Sankararaman murder case, Gurumurthy’s counsel Mahesh Jethmalani said his client was in Mumbai in connection with extremely professional commitments scheduled much in advance.
Stating that Gurumurthy would be outside Tami Nadu for the next two weeks, he said, on February 26, he will be available in Tamil Nadu at his normal place of residence in Chennai. He also furnished Gurumurthy’s mobile phone number.
Gurumurthy’s counsel seeks copy of video from Police
On Feb. 13, the counsel for Sri S. Gurumurthy sent a notice to the Special Investigating Team investigating the Sankararaman case, telling them to provide a copy of the police video of the columnist’s interrogation. In the notice, counsel R. Shankaranarayanan has accused the SIT headed by SP Premkumar of leaking information about the interrogation to a Tamil magazine with a view to causing injury to not only to his client but also Sri Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal.
According to counsel, when Gurumurthy was interrogated on Feb. 9 at Kancheepuram, he had not objected to the video recording, though no prior consent had been obtained. Subsequently, he came to know that “Nakkeeran” had carried details of the examination with some statements attributed to him and photographs which could only be from the video taken by the SIT on that day. Under Section 162 CrPC, no statement or any record thereof shall be used for any purpose other than enquiry or trial. Now that the tenet had been violated, it constituted a breach of the law of privacy and hence his client is entitled to proceed against the SIT under the law, the counsel said.
When Gurumurthy had been summoned based on articles he had written on Express, counsel wondered how Nakkeeran could have been exempted from the process. “My client has instructed me to demand a copy of the videotape…and is willing to bear the cost of the same. Unless you give satisfactory explanation for the leakage… my client will be free to take appropriate legal action against (you),” counsel added.
Police issues notice to TNIE and Cho
Manoj Kumar Sonthalia, C & MD of “The New Indian Express” and journalist and MP Cho S. Ramaswamy to have been told to depose as witness before the Kanchi SIT in connection with the case registered against S. Gurumurthy about matters involving the Sankararaman murder case. The SIT initially issued summons, asking them to appear before Kanchi policed. Subsequently, it telephoned them that they need not come. Instead, the team would visit them at their offices and record statements.
Police examine TNIE and Cho
On Feb. 14 the police examined Manoj Kumar Sonthalia, C & MD of “The New Indian Express” and journalist and MP Cho S. Ramaswamy in connection with the case registered against S. Gurumurthy. Following the registration of the case against the columnist by the Vishnu Kanchi police in Kancheepuram district, inspector Mohanavel consecutively came to the offices of both TNIE and Cho and examined the Managing Editor, Manoj Kumar Sonthalia, and the editor of Thuglak, for about an hour each. The police wanted to get some information about the publication of the articles written by Gurumurthy in the newspaper on the Kanchi Sankarachaya case.
The BJP national secretary, L. Ganeshan, has condemned the filing of case against the columnist and convenor of the Swadeshi Jagaran Manch, S. Gurumurthy. He described the police action as anti-democratic, and the charge that Mr. Gurumurthy indulged in diversionary tactics was not acceptable. The police have not proceeded against any journals or those who wrote against the Kanchi Shankara Math or in favour of the police. “Mr. Gurumurthy is one of the few who defended the Math. It is an intimidating act. Every section should condemn any effort of stifling the freedom of the press,” the BJP leader said.
Special Feature: High Court warning to SIT
"Power cannot be stretched to a breaking point"
4 days after the Supreme Court granted Sankaracharya Sri Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal bail on the basis that the State had failed to make a prima facie case against Him, on January 14th, the SIT In Charge sent a letter to 5 banks in which the Kanchi Mutt and its various Trusts maintain accounts.
In his letter to the Kancheepuram branches of the Indian Bank, State Bank of India, Canara Bank, Union Bank of India and the Indian Overseas Bank, Additional Superintendent of Police Shaktivel said:
“During the course of investigation there are reasonable suspicion to indicate certain irregularities had crept in by way of money transactions to certain agencies through your bank till today. Hence it is expedient and necessary to stop all further transaction if any through your bank in future.
Therefore, I request that necessary steps may be taken immediately to freeze the account in the above reference No.1 on the file of your bank.”
On the basis of this letter, all the current accounts of the Kanchi Mutt were frozen, and the Mutt’s activities placed in jeopardy. The Mutt’s ability to continue its traditional observances, administer its payroll, its numerous charitable works were all placed at risk.
The Mutt’s employees could not be sure of receiving their month-end salaries. Indigent recipients of medical aid had to worry about being able to continue their treatment. Since the police had sequentially charged the Mutt’s Peetadipathis and a number of its employees in a series of cases, Mr. Shaktivel’s letter was bound to fetter these individuals from conducting their legal defense.
Yesterday, the High Court ruled the police action unsustainable under law, and ordered the Kanchi Mutt accounts freed. Sadly, the details of that judgment have been glossed over by the press. However, we believe this case to be instructive of the issues arising out of this case. One of these is a question of religion. The second concerns the exercise of governmental powers.
The Prosecution argument rested on three points. First, they claimed the Mutt was not a religious institution, as it had never been registered as one. Its activities were therefore not protected under the Constitutional right to religious freedom.
Second, not only was the Mutt not a religious institution, but, according to the Prosecution, it had no juridical standing. That is to say, the Mutt was not an entity in the eyes of the law. As such, the Mutt could not seek justice before a court of law, and their petition should not even be considered. As a legal non-entity, the Mutt’s operation of its accounts and charitable Trusts had been illegal all along!
Finally, in the absence of a freeze, the Mutt’s money might be used to “tamper witnesses.” Since these monies might be used in the commission of a crime, the police argued they were liable to seizure under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Court.
Justice KP Sivasubramaniam refuted the Prosecution’s first claim handily. Pointing to the antiquity of the Kanchi Mutt, and its acceptance by a large section of society, it was, indisputably, a religious institution. The Kanchi Sreematam, he averred: “is not one of the mushroom mutts or religious outfits of recent origin most of which are established with ulterior motives. The ancient mutts like the petitioner, Thiruvavaduthurai, Thirupanandal, Ahobilam Mutt, Madurai Adheenam, etc., were established by great saints.”
Antiquity, the greatness of its founders, as well as the sentiment people attached to it, qualified an institution as religious, ruled the Honorable Justice. All that mattered to the State of Tamil Nadu was the registration.
In a body blow to SP Shaktivel, the Court also disputed the police’s interpretation of their powers under criminal law. Section 102, said Justice Sivasubramaniam, deliberately limited the scope of police power with regard to property seizures, and was meant to be construed narrowly. “Otherwise, the provision would be arbitrary ... and would be liable to be misused for ulterior purposes.”
Under Section 102, police could only seize property that was either stolen or “connected to the commission of any offence.” Further, the Supreme Court had ruled that the seized amount “has to be the outcome of commission of offence”. That meant offences that had actually occurred, averred the Court, not “the apprehension or possibility” of “future activities”.
The Justice concluded: “I am unable to comprehend any possibility or justification to invoke Section 102, Cr.P.C. as regards future activities of the Mutt."
The Justice pointed out that the Prosecution’s argument would mean the police could seize the property of anyone accused of a crime under the I.P.C. For instance, if a Company’s manager was charged with murder, the police could seize and shut down that Company. This was clearly not what was envisioned in Section 102.
Since the Mutt had offered to abide by any such order, the Court ruled that the police could oversee the Mutt’s accounts for “a reasonable period”, even though, in the Courts view it was “wholly unwarranted” and strictly speaking, "cannot be justified or sought for by the police."
In conclusion, the Honorable High Court cautioned the police sternly. Citing the maxim that “all power has legal limits”, Justice Sivasubramaniam admonished:
“The power which is vested for a particular purpose cannot be stretched to irrelevant matters and to extremes and to a breaking point, in the event of which, the Court is compelled to interfere. Discretion to use the power should be used and exercised cautiously, failing which, it becomes misuse of discretion and tainted with arbitrariness.”
And as a parting shot:
“A word of caution to the Special Investigation Team: By all means, take action in the criminal cases against the indicted individuals with a single-minded determination if you feel convinced about their guilt. No one is above the law. But if you divert and deviate from that direction unmindful of the rights of innocent devotees of the Mutt, it would result not only in diluting the prosecution, but also cast a deep shadow on it.”
Superintendent Shaktivel, are you listening?
4 days after the Supreme Court granted Sankaracharya Sri Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal bail on the basis that the State had failed to make a prima facie case against Him, on January 14th, the SIT In Charge sent a letter to 5 banks in which the Kanchi Mutt and its various Trusts maintain accounts.
In his letter to the Kancheepuram branches of the Indian Bank, State Bank of India, Canara Bank, Union Bank of India and the Indian Overseas Bank, Additional Superintendent of Police Shaktivel said:
“During the course of investigation there are reasonable suspicion to indicate certain irregularities had crept in by way of money transactions to certain agencies through your bank till today. Hence it is expedient and necessary to stop all further transaction if any through your bank in future.
Therefore, I request that necessary steps may be taken immediately to freeze the account in the above reference No.1 on the file of your bank.”
On the basis of this letter, all the current accounts of the Kanchi Mutt were frozen, and the Mutt’s activities placed in jeopardy. The Mutt’s ability to continue its traditional observances, administer its payroll, its numerous charitable works were all placed at risk.
The Mutt’s employees could not be sure of receiving their month-end salaries. Indigent recipients of medical aid had to worry about being able to continue their treatment. Since the police had sequentially charged the Mutt’s Peetadipathis and a number of its employees in a series of cases, Mr. Shaktivel’s letter was bound to fetter these individuals from conducting their legal defense.
Yesterday, the High Court ruled the police action unsustainable under law, and ordered the Kanchi Mutt accounts freed. Sadly, the details of that judgment have been glossed over by the press. However, we believe this case to be instructive of the issues arising out of this case. One of these is a question of religion. The second concerns the exercise of governmental powers.
The Prosecution argument rested on three points. First, they claimed the Mutt was not a religious institution, as it had never been registered as one. Its activities were therefore not protected under the Constitutional right to religious freedom.
Second, not only was the Mutt not a religious institution, but, according to the Prosecution, it had no juridical standing. That is to say, the Mutt was not an entity in the eyes of the law. As such, the Mutt could not seek justice before a court of law, and their petition should not even be considered. As a legal non-entity, the Mutt’s operation of its accounts and charitable Trusts had been illegal all along!
Finally, in the absence of a freeze, the Mutt’s money might be used to “tamper witnesses.” Since these monies might be used in the commission of a crime, the police argued they were liable to seizure under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Court.
Justice KP Sivasubramaniam refuted the Prosecution’s first claim handily. Pointing to the antiquity of the Kanchi Mutt, and its acceptance by a large section of society, it was, indisputably, a religious institution. The Kanchi Sreematam, he averred: “is not one of the mushroom mutts or religious outfits of recent origin most of which are established with ulterior motives. The ancient mutts like the petitioner, Thiruvavaduthurai, Thirupanandal, Ahobilam Mutt, Madurai Adheenam, etc., were established by great saints.”
Antiquity, the greatness of its founders, as well as the sentiment people attached to it, qualified an institution as religious, ruled the Honorable Justice. All that mattered to the State of Tamil Nadu was the registration.
In a body blow to SP Shaktivel, the Court also disputed the police’s interpretation of their powers under criminal law. Section 102, said Justice Sivasubramaniam, deliberately limited the scope of police power with regard to property seizures, and was meant to be construed narrowly. “Otherwise, the provision would be arbitrary ... and would be liable to be misused for ulterior purposes.”
Under Section 102, police could only seize property that was either stolen or “connected to the commission of any offence.” Further, the Supreme Court had ruled that the seized amount “has to be the outcome of commission of offence”. That meant offences that had actually occurred, averred the Court, not “the apprehension or possibility” of “future activities”.
The Justice concluded: “I am unable to comprehend any possibility or justification to invoke Section 102, Cr.P.C. as regards future activities of the Mutt."
The Justice pointed out that the Prosecution’s argument would mean the police could seize the property of anyone accused of a crime under the I.P.C. For instance, if a Company’s manager was charged with murder, the police could seize and shut down that Company. This was clearly not what was envisioned in Section 102.
Since the Mutt had offered to abide by any such order, the Court ruled that the police could oversee the Mutt’s accounts for “a reasonable period”, even though, in the Courts view it was “wholly unwarranted” and strictly speaking, "cannot be justified or sought for by the police."
In conclusion, the Honorable High Court cautioned the police sternly. Citing the maxim that “all power has legal limits”, Justice Sivasubramaniam admonished:
“The power which is vested for a particular purpose cannot be stretched to irrelevant matters and to extremes and to a breaking point, in the event of which, the Court is compelled to interfere. Discretion to use the power should be used and exercised cautiously, failing which, it becomes misuse of discretion and tainted with arbitrariness.”
And as a parting shot:
“A word of caution to the Special Investigation Team: By all means, take action in the criminal cases against the indicted individuals with a single-minded determination if you feel convinced about their guilt. No one is above the law. But if you divert and deviate from that direction unmindful of the rights of innocent devotees of the Mutt, it would result not only in diluting the prosecution, but also cast a deep shadow on it.”
Superintendent Shaktivel, are you listening?
Monday, February 14, 2005
Seers meet as Vijayendra gets bail
Press Trust of India
Chennai/Kancheepuram, February 10|21:45 IST
Three months after a dramatic police swoop separated them, the two Shankaracharyas of Kancheepuram met briefly on Thursday as the junior seer won conditional bail after being in jail for a month in a murder case.
Shankaracharyas Jayendra Saraswati and Vijayendra Saraswati spoke to one another at a Kancheepuram court, for the first time since November 10 when the senior seer was arrested at Mehboobnagar in Andhra Pradesh.
As they were talking in low voices in the court of judicial magistrate G Uthamraj, a lawyer armed with a camera phone took their picture, only to be reprimanded by the judge.
It was the Madras High Court that granted the bail to junior Shankaracharya Vijayendra Saraswati when he himself was at Kancheepuram to receive along with his senior and other accused charges in the case related to the 2004 murder of temple official A Sankararaman.
But lawyers said the charge sheet of some 1,800 pages was not ready yet and would be given out only on February 24.
Judge M Thanickachalam of the Madras High Court awarded the bail to Vijayendra Saraswati, but told him not to leave Chennai and to report once a week to the Thousand Lights police station in the heart of the city.
He was also asked to submit an affidavit promising not to tamper with evidence police say they have gathered against him in connection with the September 3, 2004 murder of A Sankararaman in Kancheepuram town.
Vijayendra Saraswati, who is the next in line after senior Shankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati, will also have to surrender his passport to police and furnish a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties of a like amount.
Court officials said the junior pontiff was likely to be released from the Chennai central prison on Friday.
Vijayendra Saraswati was arrested on January 10, the day his senior was granted bail in the same case.
The pontiffs, who have millions of devotees, have denied all charges against them although the senior seer had admitted that he was very much bothered by the allegations levelled by Sankararaman.
Both are prime accused in the murder of Sankararaman, a devotee of the Kancheepuram monastery who bitterly protested against Jayendra Saraswati after accusing him of wrongdoings and was done to death in a temple on September 3.
Jayendra Saraswati later left for Kalavai, where he is now based, while his junior returned to the Chennai prison.
A total of 24 people have been listed in the case. It also includes Ravi Subramaniam, a contractor who has become an approver, and Raghu, the younger brother of the junior Shankaracharya.
On January 27, a sessions court in Chengalpattu near Chennai had rejected Vijayendra Saraswati's bail plea. His lawyers then moved the high court February 1.
Additional public prosecutor KS Sampath said the copies of the chargesheet were not given to the accused on Thursday due to 'administrative reasons'. "It is for the court to decide whether the copies of the chargesheet will be given to them on February 24."
He said Ravi Subramaniam, who had turned approver in the case, has been cited as prosecution witness and therefore, did not appear before the court on Thursday.
Earlier, as soon as Jayendra Saraswati entered the court hall at 12.05 pm, he stood close to the bench clerk while all the others were lined up. The junior seer Vijayendra Saraswati stood behind the senior seer and both of them were seen talking to each other.
Vijayendra Saraswati and his brother Raghu touched the feet of Jayendra to seek his blessings.
Later, at about 12.45 pm, all the accused, including the four persons now out on bail (Jayendra Saraswati, Vijayendra Saraswati, Arumugham and Senthilkumar) left the court.
The court also allowed the advocates of Sundaresa Iyer and Raghu to meet them.
Chennai/Kancheepuram, February 10|21:45 IST
Three months after a dramatic police swoop separated them, the two Shankaracharyas of Kancheepuram met briefly on Thursday as the junior seer won conditional bail after being in jail for a month in a murder case.
Shankaracharyas Jayendra Saraswati and Vijayendra Saraswati spoke to one another at a Kancheepuram court, for the first time since November 10 when the senior seer was arrested at Mehboobnagar in Andhra Pradesh.
As they were talking in low voices in the court of judicial magistrate G Uthamraj, a lawyer armed with a camera phone took their picture, only to be reprimanded by the judge.
It was the Madras High Court that granted the bail to junior Shankaracharya Vijayendra Saraswati when he himself was at Kancheepuram to receive along with his senior and other accused charges in the case related to the 2004 murder of temple official A Sankararaman.
But lawyers said the charge sheet of some 1,800 pages was not ready yet and would be given out only on February 24.
Judge M Thanickachalam of the Madras High Court awarded the bail to Vijayendra Saraswati, but told him not to leave Chennai and to report once a week to the Thousand Lights police station in the heart of the city.
He was also asked to submit an affidavit promising not to tamper with evidence police say they have gathered against him in connection with the September 3, 2004 murder of A Sankararaman in Kancheepuram town.
Vijayendra Saraswati, who is the next in line after senior Shankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati, will also have to surrender his passport to police and furnish a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties of a like amount.
Court officials said the junior pontiff was likely to be released from the Chennai central prison on Friday.
Vijayendra Saraswati was arrested on January 10, the day his senior was granted bail in the same case.
The pontiffs, who have millions of devotees, have denied all charges against them although the senior seer had admitted that he was very much bothered by the allegations levelled by Sankararaman.
Both are prime accused in the murder of Sankararaman, a devotee of the Kancheepuram monastery who bitterly protested against Jayendra Saraswati after accusing him of wrongdoings and was done to death in a temple on September 3.
Jayendra Saraswati later left for Kalavai, where he is now based, while his junior returned to the Chennai prison.
A total of 24 people have been listed in the case. It also includes Ravi Subramaniam, a contractor who has become an approver, and Raghu, the younger brother of the junior Shankaracharya.
On January 27, a sessions court in Chengalpattu near Chennai had rejected Vijayendra Saraswati's bail plea. His lawyers then moved the high court February 1.
Additional public prosecutor KS Sampath said the copies of the chargesheet were not given to the accused on Thursday due to 'administrative reasons'. "It is for the court to decide whether the copies of the chargesheet will be given to them on February 24."
He said Ravi Subramaniam, who had turned approver in the case, has been cited as prosecution witness and therefore, did not appear before the court on Thursday.
Earlier, as soon as Jayendra Saraswati entered the court hall at 12.05 pm, he stood close to the bench clerk while all the others were lined up. The junior seer Vijayendra Saraswati stood behind the senior seer and both of them were seen talking to each other.
Vijayendra Saraswati and his brother Raghu touched the feet of Jayendra to seek his blessings.
Later, at about 12.45 pm, all the accused, including the four persons now out on bail (Jayendra Saraswati, Vijayendra Saraswati, Arumugham and Senthilkumar) left the court.
The court also allowed the advocates of Sundaresa Iyer and Raghu to meet them.
Cho grilled by police about Gurumurthy's article
Monday, February 14 2005 19:09 Hrs (IST) - World Time -
Chennai: Political satirist and editor of Tamil weekly Thuglak, Cho S Ramaswamy, was today (Feb 14, 2005) 'interviewed' by a police team from Kancheepuram at his office in Chennai on some articles written by columnist S Gurumurthy on the Sankararaman murder case, which appeared in the weekly recently.
The team from Vishnu Kanchi Police station, which paid a visit to the newspaper office and made enquiries with the New Indian Express Chairman and Managing Director Manojkumar Sonthalia about some articles carried by the paper written by Gurumurthy, spent over 45-minutes 'interviewing him'.
Later the Tamil film comedian and former Rajya Sabha member Cho told reporters that he would continue to publish articles of Gurumurthy.
"If it was illegal, I would not have published it", he said.
Asked whether the police had exceeded their limits by questioning him and the others, Cho said that as far as his 'interview' was concerned, "I have been cited as a witness. Nothing hostile in it. As far as Gurumurthy is concerned, it is an instance of police harassment. The case has no substance and the charges are flimsy. It will not stand scrutiny of the court", he said.
Cho said he said, "No intimidation, but in Gurumurthy's case, it is harassment. They interrogated Gurumurthy and all of a sudden all this is happening. It is intriguing. I don't understand it at all", he said.
PTI
Chennai: Political satirist and editor of Tamil weekly Thuglak, Cho S Ramaswamy, was today (Feb 14, 2005) 'interviewed' by a police team from Kancheepuram at his office in Chennai on some articles written by columnist S Gurumurthy on the Sankararaman murder case, which appeared in the weekly recently.
The team from Vishnu Kanchi Police station, which paid a visit to the newspaper office and made enquiries with the New Indian Express Chairman and Managing Director Manojkumar Sonthalia about some articles carried by the paper written by Gurumurthy, spent over 45-minutes 'interviewing him'.
Later the Tamil film comedian and former Rajya Sabha member Cho told reporters that he would continue to publish articles of Gurumurthy.
"If it was illegal, I would not have published it", he said.
Asked whether the police had exceeded their limits by questioning him and the others, Cho said that as far as his 'interview' was concerned, "I have been cited as a witness. Nothing hostile in it. As far as Gurumurthy is concerned, it is an instance of police harassment. The case has no substance and the charges are flimsy. It will not stand scrutiny of the court", he said.
Cho said he said, "No intimidation, but in Gurumurthy's case, it is harassment. They interrogated Gurumurthy and all of a sudden all this is happening. It is intriguing. I don't understand it at all", he said.
PTI
Sunday, February 13, 2005
"Police have registered a false case." - High Court
Publication: http://www.dinakaran.com
Date: January 29, 2005
Archakar Mathavan Attack Case: a startling decision granting 4 people anticipatory bail: High Court condemns Tamil Nadu Police
Justice Thanikachalam rendered a startling judgment granting bail to 4 persons, saying that [the charge] that Jayendrar instigated an attack on Archakar Madhavan was not credible and that [Madhavan] had been hurt in an accident.
The Supreme Court ordered bail Jayendrar Swamigal in the Sankarraman murder case. Hence, police registered a third case on Jayendrar Swamigal for the attack on Thirukotiyur Madhavan. They had planned to arrest Him in this case. At this stage, a TVS engineer Chellam, a consultant Seshadri, a PRO Raghunathan and Additional SP Muttukrishnan had petitioned the Chennai High Court. Judge Thanikachalam heard this case and granted anticipatory bail for all four. In his order, the judge said as follows:
"It does not look like anybody attacked Thirukottiyur Madhavan. Police have registered a false case. Looking at the police investigation report of this alleged attack case, it is clear that Madhavan was not attacked by anyone, and that his injuries are from an accident. The basis for this conclusion is that the injured person was immediately admitted to Apollo Hospital for treatment. When one examines the injuries he sustained, they appear to be only from an accident. That is why he has given a complaint to the police only after 3 months. Looking at this complaint, it is clear that he made his complaint to the police only on the insistence of someone else. I declare this case to have been fabricated by the police. I say this without any uncertainty whatsoever. At somebody's instigation, Madhavan has collaborated with the police to foist a false case. It cannot be accepted that he was attacked only on Jayendrar's instigation. There is not an iota of truth to the charges in this case. There is no credence to them. It is also not believable that Jayendrar was the cause for the removal of the Shiva murthy from Thirukarangudi Perumal Temple.
Hence I am granting anticipatory bail to all 4 petitioners. They will be required to present themselves before the investigating officers every week on Monday to give signature. They can avail bail after presenting Rs.5000 personal surety and like amont from 2 other individuals."
This is what the judge said in his decision.
Vijayendrar: Justice Thanikachalam postponed the hearing on Vijayendrar's anticipatory bail to the coming 4th [February]. Justice Thanikachalam granted bail to 3 accused in the Radhakrishnan attack case: Kumar, Kannan, Bhoominathan. Conditions of bail were that the petitioners have to present Rs5000 personal surety and two individual's guarantees for the same amount. "Since the others accused in the same case, Ananatakumar, Sunder, Meenakshi, Lakshmanan had been booked under the Goonda's Act, they could not be granted bail," the Judge said. "Hence I am dismissing their bail petitions."
translation from tamil by http://sankaracharyaarticles.blogspot.com/
Date: January 29, 2005
Archakar Mathavan Attack Case: a startling decision granting 4 people anticipatory bail: High Court condemns Tamil Nadu Police
Justice Thanikachalam rendered a startling judgment granting bail to 4 persons, saying that [the charge] that Jayendrar instigated an attack on Archakar Madhavan was not credible and that [Madhavan] had been hurt in an accident.
The Supreme Court ordered bail Jayendrar Swamigal in the Sankarraman murder case. Hence, police registered a third case on Jayendrar Swamigal for the attack on Thirukotiyur Madhavan. They had planned to arrest Him in this case. At this stage, a TVS engineer Chellam, a consultant Seshadri, a PRO Raghunathan and Additional SP Muttukrishnan had petitioned the Chennai High Court. Judge Thanikachalam heard this case and granted anticipatory bail for all four. In his order, the judge said as follows:
"It does not look like anybody attacked Thirukottiyur Madhavan. Police have registered a false case. Looking at the police investigation report of this alleged attack case, it is clear that Madhavan was not attacked by anyone, and that his injuries are from an accident. The basis for this conclusion is that the injured person was immediately admitted to Apollo Hospital for treatment. When one examines the injuries he sustained, they appear to be only from an accident. That is why he has given a complaint to the police only after 3 months. Looking at this complaint, it is clear that he made his complaint to the police only on the insistence of someone else. I declare this case to have been fabricated by the police. I say this without any uncertainty whatsoever. At somebody's instigation, Madhavan has collaborated with the police to foist a false case. It cannot be accepted that he was attacked only on Jayendrar's instigation. There is not an iota of truth to the charges in this case. There is no credence to them. It is also not believable that Jayendrar was the cause for the removal of the Shiva murthy from Thirukarangudi Perumal Temple.
Hence I am granting anticipatory bail to all 4 petitioners. They will be required to present themselves before the investigating officers every week on Monday to give signature. They can avail bail after presenting Rs.5000 personal surety and like amont from 2 other individuals."
This is what the judge said in his decision.
Vijayendrar: Justice Thanikachalam postponed the hearing on Vijayendrar's anticipatory bail to the coming 4th [February]. Justice Thanikachalam granted bail to 3 accused in the Radhakrishnan attack case: Kumar, Kannan, Bhoominathan. Conditions of bail were that the petitioners have to present Rs5000 personal surety and two individual's guarantees for the same amount. "Since the others accused in the same case, Ananatakumar, Sunder, Meenakshi, Lakshmanan had been booked under the Goonda's Act, they could not be granted bail," the Judge said. "Hence I am dismissing their bail petitions."
translation from tamil by http://sankaracharyaarticles.blogspot.com/
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Legal reprieve for both Shankaracharyas
Sanjay Pinto
Friday, February 11, 2005 (Chennai):
It was a day of one legal reprieve after another, for the two Kanchi Shankaracharyas, Jayendra Saraswati and Vijayendra Saraswati today.
While the junior seer walked out of the Chennai Central Prison on conditional bail, the senior acharya got anticipatory bail in another case.
Vijayendra Saraswati was released a month after his controversial arrest at the Kanchi Mutt in the Sankararaman murder case.
The seer headed straight to this house right behind the city's Kamakshi Amman Temple.
He has been ordered him not to leave Chennai by the Madras High Court, which granted him bail on Thursday.
Bail for senior seer
The senior Shankaracharya was also granted anticipatory bail by the Madras High Court, in the tampering of Mutt accounts case.
"These are all false cases," alleged KS Dinakaran, Kanchi Mutt lawyer.
Later in the day, another judge of the High Court held that the freezing of the 183 Mutt accounts by the Kancheepuram Police last month was illegal.
The judge however asked the Mutt authorities to submit a statement of their accounts to the Special Investigation Team every month.
"It's perhaps the beginning of the end. Things are slowly getting back to normal I guess," said Y Thyagarajan, another Kanchi Mutt lawyer.
Now, with both the Shankaracharyas out of prison, and the shadow of arrest in fresh cases having receded, devotees of the Kanchi Mutt say they can finally breathe easy.
Friday, February 11, 2005 (Chennai):
It was a day of one legal reprieve after another, for the two Kanchi Shankaracharyas, Jayendra Saraswati and Vijayendra Saraswati today.
While the junior seer walked out of the Chennai Central Prison on conditional bail, the senior acharya got anticipatory bail in another case.
Vijayendra Saraswati was released a month after his controversial arrest at the Kanchi Mutt in the Sankararaman murder case.
The seer headed straight to this house right behind the city's Kamakshi Amman Temple.
He has been ordered him not to leave Chennai by the Madras High Court, which granted him bail on Thursday.
Bail for senior seer
The senior Shankaracharya was also granted anticipatory bail by the Madras High Court, in the tampering of Mutt accounts case.
"These are all false cases," alleged KS Dinakaran, Kanchi Mutt lawyer.
Later in the day, another judge of the High Court held that the freezing of the 183 Mutt accounts by the Kancheepuram Police last month was illegal.
The judge however asked the Mutt authorities to submit a statement of their accounts to the Special Investigation Team every month.
"It's perhaps the beginning of the end. Things are slowly getting back to normal I guess," said Y Thyagarajan, another Kanchi Mutt lawyer.
Now, with both the Shankaracharyas out of prison, and the shadow of arrest in fresh cases having receded, devotees of the Kanchi Mutt say they can finally breathe easy.
SIT indulges in intimidatory tactics: Gurumurthy
Sunday February 13 2005 00:00 IST
UNI
CHENNAI: Noted columnist and auditor S Gurumurthy on Saturday night alleged that the special investigation team (SIT) was indulging in intimidatory tactics, but he will not be deterred from pursuing the proposed criminal case against SIT officials for leaking out misleading contents about his statements made to them at the time of interrogation.
In a statement here, Gurumurthy said he was hearing reports that the SIT has filed an FIR against him for purported offences like not cooperating with the police, giving false information etc at the time of interrogation.
If these reports were true, he termed these efforts as ridiculous, and surprised that even before he was served summons, the police have chosen to spread rumours about the purported case.
Meanwhile, Mahesh Jethmalani, lawyer of Gurumurthy, in a letter to Mohanavelu, deputy superintendent of police, Kancheepuram, who filed the FIR against Gurumurthy, said that his client was presently at Mumbai in connection with his professional commitments.
He said Gurumurthy will be outside the state of Tamil Nadu and would be available at his Chennai residence on February 26.
If before that the police required any information from Gurumurthy, they could contact him over his mobile phone or him, Mahaesh Jethmalani added.
UNI
CHENNAI: Noted columnist and auditor S Gurumurthy on Saturday night alleged that the special investigation team (SIT) was indulging in intimidatory tactics, but he will not be deterred from pursuing the proposed criminal case against SIT officials for leaking out misleading contents about his statements made to them at the time of interrogation.
In a statement here, Gurumurthy said he was hearing reports that the SIT has filed an FIR against him for purported offences like not cooperating with the police, giving false information etc at the time of interrogation.
If these reports were true, he termed these efforts as ridiculous, and surprised that even before he was served summons, the police have chosen to spread rumours about the purported case.
Meanwhile, Mahesh Jethmalani, lawyer of Gurumurthy, in a letter to Mohanavelu, deputy superintendent of police, Kancheepuram, who filed the FIR against Gurumurthy, said that his client was presently at Mumbai in connection with his professional commitments.
He said Gurumurthy will be outside the state of Tamil Nadu and would be available at his Chennai residence on February 26.
If before that the police required any information from Gurumurthy, they could contact him over his mobile phone or him, Mahaesh Jethmalani added.
Friday, February 11, 2005
HC lifts freeze on mutt bank accounts
February 11, 2005 19:29 IST
The Madras High Court on Friday permitted the Kanchi Mutt to operate its bank accounts frozen by Tamil Nadu police in connection with Sankararaman murder case.
Justice K P Sivasubramanian issued the ruling while allowing a writ petition filed by a manager of the mutt, S Mahadevan, to restrain the state government and police from interfering with the mutt's right to manage and administer its affairs, including its bank accounts.
"Religious organisations cannot be paralysed or closed down virtually by freezing their accounts only for the reason that the head of the organisation and a few office-bearers are alleged to be involved in some offences," the judge held.
Referring to the freezing of 183 accounts of the mutt under section 102 of the criminal procedure code, the judge said Parliament had restricted the power under the section to 'specific and narrow limits'.
He said deposits could be brought under the section provided the deposits represented either stolen money or was connected with the commission of any offence.
"In short, there must be a nexus to the crime alleged and the money to be seized", the judge said.
He directed the mutt to submit a statement of all its bank accounts to the special investigation team probing the murder case, once a month, till completion of the trial.
The Madras High Court on Friday permitted the Kanchi Mutt to operate its bank accounts frozen by Tamil Nadu police in connection with Sankararaman murder case.
Justice K P Sivasubramanian issued the ruling while allowing a writ petition filed by a manager of the mutt, S Mahadevan, to restrain the state government and police from interfering with the mutt's right to manage and administer its affairs, including its bank accounts.
"Religious organisations cannot be paralysed or closed down virtually by freezing their accounts only for the reason that the head of the organisation and a few office-bearers are alleged to be involved in some offences," the judge held.
Referring to the freezing of 183 accounts of the mutt under section 102 of the criminal procedure code, the judge said Parliament had restricted the power under the section to 'specific and narrow limits'.
He said deposits could be brought under the section provided the deposits represented either stolen money or was connected with the commission of any offence.
"In short, there must be a nexus to the crime alleged and the money to be seized", the judge said.
He directed the mutt to submit a statement of all its bank accounts to the special investigation team probing the murder case, once a month, till completion of the trial.
Vijayendra Saraswati released from prison
February 11, 2005 14:55 IST
Kanchi Shankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati's deputy, Vijayendra Saraswati, arrested in the Sankararaman murder case, was released on Friday from the central prison in Chennai following a Madras high court order Thursday granting him bail.
After fulfilling the bail conditions at the chief judicial magistrate's court at Chengalpattu, Vijayendra Saraswati's lawyers presented the court order to the prison authorities.
The junior Kanchi seer was arrested on January 10.
Accompanied by his lawyer and some Kanchi Mutt officials, Vijayendra Saraswati drove to the Sri Kamakshiamman temple complex at Greenways Road in south Chennai.
A temple official later informed reporters that the seer was observing a "mouna vrata" (vow of silence).
The mutt's lawyer, Y Thyagarajan, said: "There is some relief now that the junior acharya has also been released,"
Asked whether the two seers were "out of the woods" now, he said: "Well, you can say it is the beginning of the end. The crisis is over."
Kanchi Shankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati's deputy, Vijayendra Saraswati, arrested in the Sankararaman murder case, was released on Friday from the central prison in Chennai following a Madras high court order Thursday granting him bail.
After fulfilling the bail conditions at the chief judicial magistrate's court at Chengalpattu, Vijayendra Saraswati's lawyers presented the court order to the prison authorities.
The junior Kanchi seer was arrested on January 10.
Accompanied by his lawyer and some Kanchi Mutt officials, Vijayendra Saraswati drove to the Sri Kamakshiamman temple complex at Greenways Road in south Chennai.
A temple official later informed reporters that the seer was observing a "mouna vrata" (vow of silence).
The mutt's lawyer, Y Thyagarajan, said: "There is some relief now that the junior acharya has also been released,"
Asked whether the two seers were "out of the woods" now, he said: "Well, you can say it is the beginning of the end. The crisis is over."
Freezing of Mutt accounts illegal: HC
2005-02-11 Published by newindpress.com Gathered by Press Trust of India
CHENNAI,FEBRUARY 11: The action of the Kanchi Special Investigation Team in invoking Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code for freezing the bank accounts of the Sankara Mutt was illegal and liable to be set aside, the Madras High Court ruled on Friday. Justice K P Sivasubramaniam, who delivered the ruling, however directed the Sankara Mutt to submit a statement of accounts pertaining to all bank deposits to the SIT once in a month till the completion of the trial in the Sankararaman murder case.
CHENNAI,FEBRUARY 11: The action of the Kanchi Special Investigation Team in invoking Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code for freezing the bank accounts of the Sankara Mutt was illegal and liable to be set aside, the Madras High Court ruled on Friday. Justice K P Sivasubramaniam, who delivered the ruling, however directed the Sankara Mutt to submit a statement of accounts pertaining to all bank deposits to the SIT once in a month till the completion of the trial in the Sankararaman murder case.
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Act to Prevent Authoritarian Terrorism
Wednesday, 26 January 2005
By SS Mani
In an article in 'The Hindu' of July 2, 200l, a former Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court, VR Krishna Iyer, charged Jayalalitha with "authoritarian terrorism" when she arrogantly arrested M. Karunanidhi in the middle of the night. The Judge wrote "If allowed to run berserk, this authoritarian terrorism will make Bharat a bedlam." He further warned "One day any Chief Minister with political impets and police bullies may perpetrate a similar crime on our Prime Minister himself."
Apparently, the Prime Minister will have to wait his turn. The Chief Minister is busy using the town of Kanchipuram for target practice. Having already detonated her vindictive outburst against the Sankaracharyas, Chief Minister Jayalalitha has decided that ordinary bhakthas of the Kanchi Srimatam are first in line for her blitzkrieg.
How else can one describe the barrage of charges being rained down upon defenseless people like Sundaresa Iyer and Raghu when there is not even a whiff of any prior offenses in their past?
One is a student of Rg Veda at the Mutt. The Government has yet to cite even one prior conviction to his account. For that matter, they do not proffer any tangible evidence of the charges they make against him now.
The other is a retiree from the Reserve Bank of India, a man who has traversed the span of his life in positions of responsibility, without a blemish to his good name. Following which, he has chosen to serve the people of Kanchipuram, indeed the whole of India, by helping to administer an institution that is engaged in the education, healthcare and uplift of millions, while preserving a cherished and hoary Bharatiya tradition.
Against such defenseless civilians, the Chief Minister has invoked the Goonda’s Act! Are these the people envisaged by that law? Here is what a perusal of the Goonda’s Act reveals:
“a Goonda is one who habitually commits dangerous activities, such as bootlegging, drug offences, immoral traffic (etc.).....in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order”
This law was written in order to protect the people against organized crime and habitual criminals. In what fevered delusion could Shri Raghu and Shri Sundaresa Iyer fit that description? What, Madam Chief Minister, have they ever done, that constitutes a danger to the maintenance of public order? What crimes, have they habitually committed?
Or is this invocation of the Goonda’s Act rather a relapse of one of Jayalalitha’s own criminal habits? Like the detention of MDMK leader Vaiko under POTA? Or the arrest of Tamil news editors for criticizing her government? Or indeed the instance Justice VR Krishna Iyer cited of Karunanidhi’s midnight arrest. Is this just another case of Jayalalitha’s authoritarian terrorism gone berserk?
By thrusting a succession of charges upon Raghu and Sundaresa Iyer, Jayalalitha, through cunning misuse of the law, brandishes the power endowed to her by the people like an AK-47 -- against the very citizens she is duty-bound to protect. She does not care if the charges she has framed up amount to a house of cards. She has no need to justify her arrests with evidence.
She can dispatch her gang of policemen to confiscate records, plant evidence and even falsify documents. Her mobsters get promoted to positions of power, even though they are known to be of dubious integrity. The man she appointed as Superintendent of Police in Kanchipuram had 13 arrest warrants against him. For that matter, Jayalalitha herself has a number of criminal cases pending against her. But the Goonda’s Act could never apply to these two!
Her Prosecutors will continue to present fictional evidence to the courts, defame her victims and willfully delay the wheels of justice, and no one demands an answer for any of it! Having gotten word from their Capo of what the case should conclude, they will merrily piece together “facts” to fit the conclusion. And if it turns out those “facts” are refuted. No problem! They’ll simply round up a new set of different “facts”. Who is going to question them, when the present axes of political power in the land have already said that this matter does not concern them?
Jayalalitha, by pointing the barrel of authority, can seize private assets at will, hampering her victims’ efforts to conduct their defense. Whether it is the Kanchi Mutt or the Kumbakonam Lingayat Mutt, her despotism goes unquestioned. (The Chief Minister returned the latter Mutt to its rightful heir suspiciously soon after it became clear that her own case will be tried in Karnataka, where the Lingayats are a powerful sect). Meanwhile, the constitutionally protected right to property suddenly escapes the Central Government’s memory.
“Why past midnight? Why a posse of police? The whole melodrama, prima facie, seems rudely insulting, insanely excessive and utterly lawless,” said the venerable judge. “Police power is a public trust and its brazen breach calls for condign punishment.” In 2001, after Karunanidhi’s arrest, his was a clarion call that the intelligentsia rallied around. At the Centre, demands were made to recall the Tamil Nadu governor, for countenancing such a police raj.
Three years later, when the same script is re-run, this time on a sanyasi with no political capital, no one steps forward to stop Jayalalitha’s rampage. (And as for ordinary citizens like Sundaresa Iyer, well they cannot even begin to count!)
These are not the days of benevolent kings, when swift justice was meted out to such offenders: their heads shaved, their faces marked with red and black spots, before a ceremonial ride on donkey-back through the city streets! There is no one to even shame Jayalalitha for her assault on Bharat, so it seems.
And so it is that Bharat, true to the learned Judge’s prediction, slouches towards bedlam, while those at the helm dither. Such Government Goonda-ism is bound to erode the public confidence, and consequently threaten public order, for the people’s concern has long been forgotten. A crime was committed in Kanchipuram on September the 3rd. Will the truth ever come out? Will the real culprits get punished? These pointed questions about the Sankarraman murder case are in acute danger of becoming rhetorical.
The people of Tamil Nadu have every right to expect their Government to deliver answers. But the way the investigation has been conducted by the Special Investigating team under CM Jayalalitha’s personal direction, the people of Tamil Nadu and the whole of India are increasingly losing hope.
The investigation stands tainted, first by the Government’s prejudicial actions, then because the police and the Chief Minister squandered their already threadbare credibility, by engaging in what amounts to authoritarian terrorism.
What Jayalalitha is doing to the Sankaracharyas & the Kanchi Mutt is similar to what Communist China did to the Dalai Lama and the non-violent Buddhist monasteries in Tibet in the 60s. At that time the first person to condemn China in strongest terms was our then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. It saddens me that the present Prime Minister is keeping quiet when the danger is faced by his own fellow-citizens, who have entrusted to him the charge of guarding their liberties.
Perhaps Jayalalitha calculates that in a so-called secular country like India, with a Sikh as the Prime Minister, a Muslim as the President, and a Christian as the leader of the ruling party at the Centre, her assault on the institutions of docile, peace loving, and law-abiding Hindus, whether they number 700 million or more, will never be questioned by any authorities.
Are the President and the Prime Minister going to prove her right?
By SS Mani
In an article in 'The Hindu' of July 2, 200l, a former Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court, VR Krishna Iyer, charged Jayalalitha with "authoritarian terrorism" when she arrogantly arrested M. Karunanidhi in the middle of the night. The Judge wrote "If allowed to run berserk, this authoritarian terrorism will make Bharat a bedlam." He further warned "One day any Chief Minister with political impets and police bullies may perpetrate a similar crime on our Prime Minister himself."
Apparently, the Prime Minister will have to wait his turn. The Chief Minister is busy using the town of Kanchipuram for target practice. Having already detonated her vindictive outburst against the Sankaracharyas, Chief Minister Jayalalitha has decided that ordinary bhakthas of the Kanchi Srimatam are first in line for her blitzkrieg.
How else can one describe the barrage of charges being rained down upon defenseless people like Sundaresa Iyer and Raghu when there is not even a whiff of any prior offenses in their past?
One is a student of Rg Veda at the Mutt. The Government has yet to cite even one prior conviction to his account. For that matter, they do not proffer any tangible evidence of the charges they make against him now.
The other is a retiree from the Reserve Bank of India, a man who has traversed the span of his life in positions of responsibility, without a blemish to his good name. Following which, he has chosen to serve the people of Kanchipuram, indeed the whole of India, by helping to administer an institution that is engaged in the education, healthcare and uplift of millions, while preserving a cherished and hoary Bharatiya tradition.
Against such defenseless civilians, the Chief Minister has invoked the Goonda’s Act! Are these the people envisaged by that law? Here is what a perusal of the Goonda’s Act reveals:
“a Goonda is one who habitually commits dangerous activities, such as bootlegging, drug offences, immoral traffic (etc.).....in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order”
This law was written in order to protect the people against organized crime and habitual criminals. In what fevered delusion could Shri Raghu and Shri Sundaresa Iyer fit that description? What, Madam Chief Minister, have they ever done, that constitutes a danger to the maintenance of public order? What crimes, have they habitually committed?
Or is this invocation of the Goonda’s Act rather a relapse of one of Jayalalitha’s own criminal habits? Like the detention of MDMK leader Vaiko under POTA? Or the arrest of Tamil news editors for criticizing her government? Or indeed the instance Justice VR Krishna Iyer cited of Karunanidhi’s midnight arrest. Is this just another case of Jayalalitha’s authoritarian terrorism gone berserk?
By thrusting a succession of charges upon Raghu and Sundaresa Iyer, Jayalalitha, through cunning misuse of the law, brandishes the power endowed to her by the people like an AK-47 -- against the very citizens she is duty-bound to protect. She does not care if the charges she has framed up amount to a house of cards. She has no need to justify her arrests with evidence.
She can dispatch her gang of policemen to confiscate records, plant evidence and even falsify documents. Her mobsters get promoted to positions of power, even though they are known to be of dubious integrity. The man she appointed as Superintendent of Police in Kanchipuram had 13 arrest warrants against him. For that matter, Jayalalitha herself has a number of criminal cases pending against her. But the Goonda’s Act could never apply to these two!
Her Prosecutors will continue to present fictional evidence to the courts, defame her victims and willfully delay the wheels of justice, and no one demands an answer for any of it! Having gotten word from their Capo of what the case should conclude, they will merrily piece together “facts” to fit the conclusion. And if it turns out those “facts” are refuted. No problem! They’ll simply round up a new set of different “facts”. Who is going to question them, when the present axes of political power in the land have already said that this matter does not concern them?
Jayalalitha, by pointing the barrel of authority, can seize private assets at will, hampering her victims’ efforts to conduct their defense. Whether it is the Kanchi Mutt or the Kumbakonam Lingayat Mutt, her despotism goes unquestioned. (The Chief Minister returned the latter Mutt to its rightful heir suspiciously soon after it became clear that her own case will be tried in Karnataka, where the Lingayats are a powerful sect). Meanwhile, the constitutionally protected right to property suddenly escapes the Central Government’s memory.
“Why past midnight? Why a posse of police? The whole melodrama, prima facie, seems rudely insulting, insanely excessive and utterly lawless,” said the venerable judge. “Police power is a public trust and its brazen breach calls for condign punishment.” In 2001, after Karunanidhi’s arrest, his was a clarion call that the intelligentsia rallied around. At the Centre, demands were made to recall the Tamil Nadu governor, for countenancing such a police raj.
Three years later, when the same script is re-run, this time on a sanyasi with no political capital, no one steps forward to stop Jayalalitha’s rampage. (And as for ordinary citizens like Sundaresa Iyer, well they cannot even begin to count!)
These are not the days of benevolent kings, when swift justice was meted out to such offenders: their heads shaved, their faces marked with red and black spots, before a ceremonial ride on donkey-back through the city streets! There is no one to even shame Jayalalitha for her assault on Bharat, so it seems.
And so it is that Bharat, true to the learned Judge’s prediction, slouches towards bedlam, while those at the helm dither. Such Government Goonda-ism is bound to erode the public confidence, and consequently threaten public order, for the people’s concern has long been forgotten. A crime was committed in Kanchipuram on September the 3rd. Will the truth ever come out? Will the real culprits get punished? These pointed questions about the Sankarraman murder case are in acute danger of becoming rhetorical.
The people of Tamil Nadu have every right to expect their Government to deliver answers. But the way the investigation has been conducted by the Special Investigating team under CM Jayalalitha’s personal direction, the people of Tamil Nadu and the whole of India are increasingly losing hope.
The investigation stands tainted, first by the Government’s prejudicial actions, then because the police and the Chief Minister squandered their already threadbare credibility, by engaging in what amounts to authoritarian terrorism.
What Jayalalitha is doing to the Sankaracharyas & the Kanchi Mutt is similar to what Communist China did to the Dalai Lama and the non-violent Buddhist monasteries in Tibet in the 60s. At that time the first person to condemn China in strongest terms was our then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. It saddens me that the present Prime Minister is keeping quiet when the danger is faced by his own fellow-citizens, who have entrusted to him the charge of guarding their liberties.
Perhaps Jayalalitha calculates that in a so-called secular country like India, with a Sikh as the Prime Minister, a Muslim as the President, and a Christian as the leader of the ruling party at the Centre, her assault on the institutions of docile, peace loving, and law-abiding Hindus, whether they number 700 million or more, will never be questioned by any authorities.
Are the President and the Prime Minister going to prove her right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
