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!]
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
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?
Time for Action
Tuesday, 18 January 2005
S.S. Mani
While the arrest of the Kanchi Sankaracharya without basis in evidence was abominable, the actions of the Tamil Nadu government since his release on bail by the Supreme Court require a rapid reaction.
The illegal detention of Sri Vijayendra Saraswati Swamigal, Sankaracharya of Kanchi, on the evening of his predecessor’s release, is incompatible with the Constitution of India. It is the duty of every Indian to rise against such atrocious misuse of power. If they intend to remain true to their oath to protect our Constitution, the President and Prime Minister of India must, perforce, take summary action to halt the despicable and dictatorial course that Chief Minister Jayalalitha is taking.
On the evening of January 10, the Chief Minister sent a few truckloads of police with guns loaded, to a sanctified place of worship, the Sankara Matam. With their shoes on, and uttering harsh words towards unarmed devotees peaceably gathered there, the Chief Minister’s commando force committed a sacrilege of a venerable Indian tradition. Barring the entry of attorneys, and without informing them of the charges against Him, the Chief Minister had her police junta drag the Sankaracharya off the premises to Chennai Central Jail.
When the police finally articulated the charges before the magistrate, we discovered that the Sankaracharya was being arrested, as was his senior, Sri Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal, on murder and conspiracy charges. On the present occasion, neither the Chief Minister nor her police chief deigned to describe the basis of these charges. However, it is worth noting that the Supreme Court of India stipulated in its order granting bail to Sri Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal, (whom the Chief Minister declared the prime conspirator in the same case) that Madam Jayalalitha and her police had not produced any evidence linking the Sankaracharya to the crime. Yet, Vijayendra Saraswati Swamigal has been arrested for the very same crime.
In effect, the Supreme Court ruling indicated that there was no basis in law for effecting the first arrest. Despite this repudiation of her exercise of police powers, Chief Minister Jayalalitha did not hesitate to ponder the legal grounds of ordering a second arrest. Suo moto, without even an articulation of the evidentiary basis for such action, she rushed in where angels would fear to tread. Such dictatorial exhibitionism deserves immediate dismissal of Jayalalitha’s government.
Next, the Chief Minister froze 183 accounts of the Kanchi Mutt, and its various Trusts, paralyzing the delivery of countless medical, educational & social benefits to millions of our citizens throughout the country. Again, she did not even bother to give any rhyme or reason for her actions. Such arbitrary sequestration of property deserves condemnation from any political entity that cares for India’s economic well-being. One would like to ask the Prime Minister & the Finance Minister whether any organization or individual would ever like to invest in a country where politicians can seize personal property without any due process of law. In many countries, such action would be punishable with punitive fines and imprisonment.
The Jayalalitha Government has the audacity to question even the Supreme Court’s verdict on the bail application. The Supreme Court is the final authority in all legal matters. But, without regard to this constitutional authority, the Chief Minister voices opprobrium against their judgment. To her no Court of Law can give a decision or opinion not in conformity with hers! What is objectionable is the tone finding fault with the legal analysis of the submitted evidence by the apex court. This amounts to contempt of court. It goes to the very root of our democracy, that the executive, that too at the State level, cannot trump the judiciary. The Centre has got to take action to preserve the constitutional integrity of the Supreme Court. The Jayalalitha Government, which has violated the oath of office, should be sacked.
The untold harassment and sufferings meted out to the officials of the Mutt by Jayalalitha’s Police before their arrests (Raghu, Sundaresa Iyer & Vishwanatha Iyer) are condemnable by one & all. Horrific tales of psychological torture, repeated harassing interrogations, and threats of harm have abounded Kanchipuram without the slightest notice from the Centre. Mr Subramaniam Swamy humorously mentioned in one of his interviews that if anyone was to show up at Kanchipuram Bus stand seeking directions, that person would be hauled off to the Forest Bungalow for questioning. Is this a Police State undertaking ethnic cleansing against Hindu devotees of the Kanchi Mutt? How long will Jayalalitha be allowed to commit such atrocities in the name of upholding law? Only Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Kalam can answer that question.
Against all propriety and decency, the video taken during the police custody of Sankaracharya was released to TV Channels. Oddly enough, in this videotape, Swamiji has categorically stated that he never told anyone to kill or even hurt anybody. Unmindful of this rather essential fact, Jayalalitha’s Government, via its counsel, told Justice Balasubramaniam that they have a confession, albeit inadmissible as evidence. The Acharya’s clear denial is a confession? What a blatant lie! The Human Rights Commission has sent Jayalalitha’s government a notice seeking explanation for the release of the tape, but will she care for the Commission when she does not even bother to heed the Supreme Court?
Madam Jayalalitha has a history of misusing her political power for personal vendetta. She used excessive brute force of the police in arresting DMK Leader Karunanidhi just for personal vendetta. She leveled indecent charges against Dr Chenna Reddy, a leader of Congress party and then Governor of Tamilnadu. A senior IAS Officer of the Government of Tamilnadu, who did not see eye to eye with her was brutally attacked with acid and there was no concluding investigation. She harassed a former judge of the High Court of Tamilnadu, who was elevated to the Supreme Court, through frivolous and unfounded charges against his close relatives. Political murders regularly take place during her Chief Ministership, and remain uninvestigated. Will the political parties & the Central Government, particularly Dr.Manmohan Singh (& Sonia Gandhi) take strong action to dismiss her or remain imbecile spectators and derelict in their duties? It must be kept in mind that Jayalalitha did not spare even Sonia Gandhi in her vicious pre-election speeches.
Summary dismissal of Jayalalitha’s government has become necessary because she does not understand the language of reason. She claims, in her recent letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, that there has been no protest against the Sankaracharya’s arrest. Over half a million Citizens from India & abroad have signed petitions to the President of India, the Prime Minister of India & the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court asking their intervention. A variety of political parties, from the Sangh Parivar to the Muslim Ulema Council have condemned the arrest in the harshest terms. But these are of no consequence to her. The only thing she respects is the goonda-ism that she herself has been known to engage in. For example, inciting her followers to burn a few buses filled with innocent travelers, as happened to three college girls after her arrest by then Chief Minister Karunanidhi. To her, only such anti-social, illegal and despicable acts are real protests. I wish her mentor, Dr MG Ramachandran was alive to-day. He would have banished her outright for such atrocities.
Some political leaders have cited vote bank politics for her current actions. However, the reason may be far more insidious. Rumours are floating that behind Sankara Raman’s murder there was the hand of Jayalalitha and that is why she hastened to buy Sankar Raman’s family through a donation of 5 lakhs. Also that is the reason why she opposes any enquiry by outside agency - the CBI. It is here that all political parties must unite and demand an independent enquiry by CBI, so that the real culprit(s) in the murder are punished. Pending the conclusion of the enquiry, Jayalalitha should resign or be removed by the Centre so that she is unable to perpetrate illegal activities professing to be an upholder of law.
S.S. Mani
While the arrest of the Kanchi Sankaracharya without basis in evidence was abominable, the actions of the Tamil Nadu government since his release on bail by the Supreme Court require a rapid reaction.
The illegal detention of Sri Vijayendra Saraswati Swamigal, Sankaracharya of Kanchi, on the evening of his predecessor’s release, is incompatible with the Constitution of India. It is the duty of every Indian to rise against such atrocious misuse of power. If they intend to remain true to their oath to protect our Constitution, the President and Prime Minister of India must, perforce, take summary action to halt the despicable and dictatorial course that Chief Minister Jayalalitha is taking.
On the evening of January 10, the Chief Minister sent a few truckloads of police with guns loaded, to a sanctified place of worship, the Sankara Matam. With their shoes on, and uttering harsh words towards unarmed devotees peaceably gathered there, the Chief Minister’s commando force committed a sacrilege of a venerable Indian tradition. Barring the entry of attorneys, and without informing them of the charges against Him, the Chief Minister had her police junta drag the Sankaracharya off the premises to Chennai Central Jail.
When the police finally articulated the charges before the magistrate, we discovered that the Sankaracharya was being arrested, as was his senior, Sri Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal, on murder and conspiracy charges. On the present occasion, neither the Chief Minister nor her police chief deigned to describe the basis of these charges. However, it is worth noting that the Supreme Court of India stipulated in its order granting bail to Sri Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal, (whom the Chief Minister declared the prime conspirator in the same case) that Madam Jayalalitha and her police had not produced any evidence linking the Sankaracharya to the crime. Yet, Vijayendra Saraswati Swamigal has been arrested for the very same crime.
In effect, the Supreme Court ruling indicated that there was no basis in law for effecting the first arrest. Despite this repudiation of her exercise of police powers, Chief Minister Jayalalitha did not hesitate to ponder the legal grounds of ordering a second arrest. Suo moto, without even an articulation of the evidentiary basis for such action, she rushed in where angels would fear to tread. Such dictatorial exhibitionism deserves immediate dismissal of Jayalalitha’s government.
Next, the Chief Minister froze 183 accounts of the Kanchi Mutt, and its various Trusts, paralyzing the delivery of countless medical, educational & social benefits to millions of our citizens throughout the country. Again, she did not even bother to give any rhyme or reason for her actions. Such arbitrary sequestration of property deserves condemnation from any political entity that cares for India’s economic well-being. One would like to ask the Prime Minister & the Finance Minister whether any organization or individual would ever like to invest in a country where politicians can seize personal property without any due process of law. In many countries, such action would be punishable with punitive fines and imprisonment.
The Jayalalitha Government has the audacity to question even the Supreme Court’s verdict on the bail application. The Supreme Court is the final authority in all legal matters. But, without regard to this constitutional authority, the Chief Minister voices opprobrium against their judgment. To her no Court of Law can give a decision or opinion not in conformity with hers! What is objectionable is the tone finding fault with the legal analysis of the submitted evidence by the apex court. This amounts to contempt of court. It goes to the very root of our democracy, that the executive, that too at the State level, cannot trump the judiciary. The Centre has got to take action to preserve the constitutional integrity of the Supreme Court. The Jayalalitha Government, which has violated the oath of office, should be sacked.
The untold harassment and sufferings meted out to the officials of the Mutt by Jayalalitha’s Police before their arrests (Raghu, Sundaresa Iyer & Vishwanatha Iyer) are condemnable by one & all. Horrific tales of psychological torture, repeated harassing interrogations, and threats of harm have abounded Kanchipuram without the slightest notice from the Centre. Mr Subramaniam Swamy humorously mentioned in one of his interviews that if anyone was to show up at Kanchipuram Bus stand seeking directions, that person would be hauled off to the Forest Bungalow for questioning. Is this a Police State undertaking ethnic cleansing against Hindu devotees of the Kanchi Mutt? How long will Jayalalitha be allowed to commit such atrocities in the name of upholding law? Only Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Kalam can answer that question.
Against all propriety and decency, the video taken during the police custody of Sankaracharya was released to TV Channels. Oddly enough, in this videotape, Swamiji has categorically stated that he never told anyone to kill or even hurt anybody. Unmindful of this rather essential fact, Jayalalitha’s Government, via its counsel, told Justice Balasubramaniam that they have a confession, albeit inadmissible as evidence. The Acharya’s clear denial is a confession? What a blatant lie! The Human Rights Commission has sent Jayalalitha’s government a notice seeking explanation for the release of the tape, but will she care for the Commission when she does not even bother to heed the Supreme Court?
Madam Jayalalitha has a history of misusing her political power for personal vendetta. She used excessive brute force of the police in arresting DMK Leader Karunanidhi just for personal vendetta. She leveled indecent charges against Dr Chenna Reddy, a leader of Congress party and then Governor of Tamilnadu. A senior IAS Officer of the Government of Tamilnadu, who did not see eye to eye with her was brutally attacked with acid and there was no concluding investigation. She harassed a former judge of the High Court of Tamilnadu, who was elevated to the Supreme Court, through frivolous and unfounded charges against his close relatives. Political murders regularly take place during her Chief Ministership, and remain uninvestigated. Will the political parties & the Central Government, particularly Dr.Manmohan Singh (& Sonia Gandhi) take strong action to dismiss her or remain imbecile spectators and derelict in their duties? It must be kept in mind that Jayalalitha did not spare even Sonia Gandhi in her vicious pre-election speeches.
Summary dismissal of Jayalalitha’s government has become necessary because she does not understand the language of reason. She claims, in her recent letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, that there has been no protest against the Sankaracharya’s arrest. Over half a million Citizens from India & abroad have signed petitions to the President of India, the Prime Minister of India & the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court asking their intervention. A variety of political parties, from the Sangh Parivar to the Muslim Ulema Council have condemned the arrest in the harshest terms. But these are of no consequence to her. The only thing she respects is the goonda-ism that she herself has been known to engage in. For example, inciting her followers to burn a few buses filled with innocent travelers, as happened to three college girls after her arrest by then Chief Minister Karunanidhi. To her, only such anti-social, illegal and despicable acts are real protests. I wish her mentor, Dr MG Ramachandran was alive to-day. He would have banished her outright for such atrocities.
Some political leaders have cited vote bank politics for her current actions. However, the reason may be far more insidious. Rumours are floating that behind Sankara Raman’s murder there was the hand of Jayalalitha and that is why she hastened to buy Sankar Raman’s family through a donation of 5 lakhs. Also that is the reason why she opposes any enquiry by outside agency - the CBI. It is here that all political parties must unite and demand an independent enquiry by CBI, so that the real culprit(s) in the murder are punished. Pending the conclusion of the enquiry, Jayalalitha should resign or be removed by the Centre so that she is unable to perpetrate illegal activities professing to be an upholder of law.
Arrest of Kanchi seer
“Hindus can never get justice in secular India?”—S. Gurumurthy
Report by Pramod Kumar
Terming the arrest of both the Kanchi Shankara-charyas, Swami Jayendra Saraswati and Swami Vijyendra Saraswati, as a ‘predetermined move’, noted ideologue and author Shri S. Gurumurthy has said that anything connected with Hindus is never given justice in India. He was delivering a talk on the ‘Siege of Kanchi Mutt and its Implications’, organised by the BJP think-tank in New Delhi on January 30. “The secularists and English-educated people have caused a great damage to the country. In fact, it is the English-educated India that has become a problem for India itself,” he added.
Coming down heavily on the English press, that while reporting the case very irresponsibly, the press on its own convicted the Shankaracharya even before the court could say a word on it, he said that the entire media and secular India were insensitive to the noblest religious place of this country. “The media has done more damage to the seer than J. Jayalalithaa and the Tamil Nadu police. It is the purest example of yellow journalism,” he said, adding that if the media had truly supervised the whole issue, no government could have acted in such an irresponsible and biased manner. He said the state government had declared the seer a culprit and the whole media cooperated in this game-plan. “The press indeed endorsed both the ‘modern India’ and ‘secular India’,” he said, adding that the secular Constitution of the country too was insensitive to the Hindus.
Describing Jayalalithaa as a political enemy, he said the Central Government had the power to intervene in the issue, but it did not. He cited the raid by the Uttar Pradesh police at Nadwa to nab an ISI agent when the then Prime Minister, the late P.V. Narasimha Rao, intervened and sent two of his Cabinet ministers to apologise to Ali Miyan. He said what happened to the revered religious leaders of Hindus should not happen to any Imam, Archbishop, the President of India, the Chief Justice of Supreme Court, as they are respected persons of the country.
He emphasised, “The people in the Mutt are very law abiding. They fear the police and the law. It is a reverent religious place with no hierarchy, advisors or bureaucracy. The activities of the Mutt are transparent. Even in the case of funds, the Mutt has been submitting the annual audit report to the government since 1925.”
The Swadeshi Jagaran Manch, the convenor, said, that it was impossible to say what prompted the Jayalalithaa government to take the step it did and claimed it was not for enforcement of law alone. “There appeared to be a number of designs behind this move. The entire establishment of Tamil Nadu was kept away from this action. Even the state Advocate General was not consulted before taking action. It was a clear case of pre-determined action,” he stated. He noted that the arrest at the behest of the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, a ‘Hindu sympathiser’, had a ‘shocking effect’ on the Hindu society. Shri Gurumurthy cited the politically motivated police investigation in a murder case of Bihar in 1976 when the Anand Marg’s chief was falsely implicated in the case.
Earlier, initiating the discussion, Shri Balbir Punj, noted journalist and Member of Parliament, said that the arrest of Kanchi seer was a sustained effort to kill the historical Mutt and tradition of the country.
Report by Pramod Kumar
Terming the arrest of both the Kanchi Shankara-charyas, Swami Jayendra Saraswati and Swami Vijyendra Saraswati, as a ‘predetermined move’, noted ideologue and author Shri S. Gurumurthy has said that anything connected with Hindus is never given justice in India. He was delivering a talk on the ‘Siege of Kanchi Mutt and its Implications’, organised by the BJP think-tank in New Delhi on January 30. “The secularists and English-educated people have caused a great damage to the country. In fact, it is the English-educated India that has become a problem for India itself,” he added.
Coming down heavily on the English press, that while reporting the case very irresponsibly, the press on its own convicted the Shankaracharya even before the court could say a word on it, he said that the entire media and secular India were insensitive to the noblest religious place of this country. “The media has done more damage to the seer than J. Jayalalithaa and the Tamil Nadu police. It is the purest example of yellow journalism,” he said, adding that if the media had truly supervised the whole issue, no government could have acted in such an irresponsible and biased manner. He said the state government had declared the seer a culprit and the whole media cooperated in this game-plan. “The press indeed endorsed both the ‘modern India’ and ‘secular India’,” he said, adding that the secular Constitution of the country too was insensitive to the Hindus.
Describing Jayalalithaa as a political enemy, he said the Central Government had the power to intervene in the issue, but it did not. He cited the raid by the Uttar Pradesh police at Nadwa to nab an ISI agent when the then Prime Minister, the late P.V. Narasimha Rao, intervened and sent two of his Cabinet ministers to apologise to Ali Miyan. He said what happened to the revered religious leaders of Hindus should not happen to any Imam, Archbishop, the President of India, the Chief Justice of Supreme Court, as they are respected persons of the country.
He emphasised, “The people in the Mutt are very law abiding. They fear the police and the law. It is a reverent religious place with no hierarchy, advisors or bureaucracy. The activities of the Mutt are transparent. Even in the case of funds, the Mutt has been submitting the annual audit report to the government since 1925.”
The Swadeshi Jagaran Manch, the convenor, said, that it was impossible to say what prompted the Jayalalithaa government to take the step it did and claimed it was not for enforcement of law alone. “There appeared to be a number of designs behind this move. The entire establishment of Tamil Nadu was kept away from this action. Even the state Advocate General was not consulted before taking action. It was a clear case of pre-determined action,” he stated. He noted that the arrest at the behest of the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, a ‘Hindu sympathiser’, had a ‘shocking effect’ on the Hindu society. Shri Gurumurthy cited the politically motivated police investigation in a murder case of Bihar in 1976 when the Anand Marg’s chief was falsely implicated in the case.
Earlier, initiating the discussion, Shri Balbir Punj, noted journalist and Member of Parliament, said that the arrest of Kanchi seer was a sustained effort to kill the historical Mutt and tradition of the country.
Jaya's vendetta on Kanchi Mutt
Narad
It Is now getting increasingly clear that what is projected as a case against Kanchi Shankaracharya, Shri Jayendra Saraswati for murder is, in reality, an attempt by the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, J. Jayalalithaa, to destroy the reputation of the religious head. All this talk of letting the law take its course seems rubbish. Jayalalithaa is indulging in a vendetta. She is doing everything she can to destroy the reputation of the Kanchi Shankaracharya, leave aside the fact that the Supreme Court has given bail to the Mathadhipathi. As The Hindu (January 12) said: “The Court would permit detention only if it finds reasonable ground for believing that the person is guilty. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution in the Shankaracharya case did not cross this threshold.” Of course, the Court made it very clear that the final decision has yet to be made and as The Hindu put it, “in purely legal terms, if (the Shankaracharya's) arrest two months ago could not be seen as proof of guilt, his release on bail is not to be seen as final exoneration either”. Granted. But to quote the paper again: “With the Supreme Court finding that the evidence gathered so far in the Shankararaman murder case is too thin to warrant detention of Shri Jayendra Saraswati, the arrest of the junior Acharya who would seem to be more peripheral in the case, is inexplicable.”
What is clear so far is that Jayalalithaa is hell-bent on destroying the Kanchi seer's image. Where was the need to surreptitiously leak out the seer's alleged confession while in police custody to two private TV channels? Isn't that meant to condition the public mind in one particular direction? What kind of a sick woman is this Jayalalithaa? Why can't the court restrain her? As Hindustan Times (January 12) put it: “The case brings out the shoddy working of the police in our country.” The paper said that “instead of investigating a case and building up grounds for an arrest, the police first rush to arrest a suspect, take him into custody and, through what is euphemistically called ‘sustained interrogation’, make up a case.” The paper further said: “The time has come for the government to give serious consideration to professionalising criminal investigation across the country and ending the tyranny of rules framed in the 19th century.”
Meanwhile, another question arises. Can one sue the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu for encouraging her police to leak out alleged evidence even before the court hears it? Is that proper? Importantly, is that legal? With what seems a clear case of vengefulness, the Tamil Nadu government has frozen as many as 183 bank accounts of the Kanchi Mutt, making it almost impossible for the Mutt's aid centres, hospitals, educational institutions and Veda pathashalas to function. The Telegraph (January 14) quotes one of Jayendra Saraswati's lawyers, A. Shanmugham, as saying: “This is without any basis and amounts to violation of the fundamental rights of my client.” At this point what exactly is the seer charged with? Abetment of murder? Molestation of woman devotees? Misappropriation of funds? How come Jayalalithaa is allowed to get away with her vengefulness on the theory that the law is no respecter of persons and will take its course? Is that true only of a religious head or is it equally applicable to a Chief Minister? Somebody must answer that. The Supreme Court has exposed the irrelevance of the charges so far made against the seer. Can this be used to sue Jayalalithaa for character assassination? Murder comes in all shapes and forms. The media, understandably, has been lapping up whatever material it comes across.
It would seem that the print media these days is becoming more and more attractive to young graduates. According to The Statesman (January 8), journalism is presently drawing “hundreds of young professionals from the sciences, apart from the arts stream which was where most hailed from”. Fancy journalism inviting technical graduates including those from agriculture, veterinary, geology and other applied sciences! What is it that attracts them? Print journalism is flourishing. Again, according to The Statesman, Assam's political, commercial and educational hub, Guwahati, has 20 dailies, half of them in Assamese. Seven dailies are published from more than one centre and three Assamese dailies claim a circulation surpassing a lakh each. The print media in Assam is a major employer, with 8,000 direct jobs and indirect employment for some 20,000 persons in a state with a population of 26 million. Apparently another 400 Guwahati-based journalists work for various local, regional and national newspapers. But what marks the Assamese language media and what is not widely known outside the region, says The Statesman, is that a number of their editors are award winning and highly regarded scholars like Manoj Goswami of Dainik Janasadharan, Hemen Borgohain, formerly of Amar Asom and Kanak Sen Deka of Agradoot. Sen reportedly is the current president of the Asom Sahitya Sabha, with Borgohain being his immediate predecessor.
But what is even less known is the enormous pressure under which Assamese journalists function. They are reportedly under constant threats from insurgents, surrendered militants and even security personnel. In the last 20 years, over 20 journalists have been killed in the line of duty. And that is a sobering thought. In the earliest days, Assamese journals seemed to have only one major aim: liberating Assam from the Bengali hold. Later that was viewed as another facet of social work. But it was only following the student-led agitation against illegal migration in the early 1980s that journalism assumed a political face. And that is the face it presently wears.
Incidentally, and so far only The Telegraph (January 14) has carried the story, the Income-Tax Department is pushing for a physical assessment of offerings by Jayalalithaa, including a diamond-studded gold crown, to the Guruvayoor Sri Krishna Temple in June 2001 “in the face of opposition from the temple authorities and the Kerala government”. The crown is reportedly worth Rs 6.5 crore. How come Jayalalithaa could afford to spend Rs 6.5 crore for an offering? There are several cases against her and it is time the government took a closer look at them. Jayalalithaa is quoted by The Telegraph as saying that whatever she gifted to the temple was given to her by her supporters and devotees of Guruvayoorappan. Some explanation, that.
For far too long a time has this country put up with politicians' shenanigans. It is time the government took some action against those who have been exercising power indiscriminately, without being accountable to anyone, let alone the general public. The rubbishing of the people should be called a halt to. There has been enough of it.
It Is now getting increasingly clear that what is projected as a case against Kanchi Shankaracharya, Shri Jayendra Saraswati for murder is, in reality, an attempt by the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, J. Jayalalithaa, to destroy the reputation of the religious head. All this talk of letting the law take its course seems rubbish. Jayalalithaa is indulging in a vendetta. She is doing everything she can to destroy the reputation of the Kanchi Shankaracharya, leave aside the fact that the Supreme Court has given bail to the Mathadhipathi. As The Hindu (January 12) said: “The Court would permit detention only if it finds reasonable ground for believing that the person is guilty. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution in the Shankaracharya case did not cross this threshold.” Of course, the Court made it very clear that the final decision has yet to be made and as The Hindu put it, “in purely legal terms, if (the Shankaracharya's) arrest two months ago could not be seen as proof of guilt, his release on bail is not to be seen as final exoneration either”. Granted. But to quote the paper again: “With the Supreme Court finding that the evidence gathered so far in the Shankararaman murder case is too thin to warrant detention of Shri Jayendra Saraswati, the arrest of the junior Acharya who would seem to be more peripheral in the case, is inexplicable.”
What is clear so far is that Jayalalithaa is hell-bent on destroying the Kanchi seer's image. Where was the need to surreptitiously leak out the seer's alleged confession while in police custody to two private TV channels? Isn't that meant to condition the public mind in one particular direction? What kind of a sick woman is this Jayalalithaa? Why can't the court restrain her? As Hindustan Times (January 12) put it: “The case brings out the shoddy working of the police in our country.” The paper said that “instead of investigating a case and building up grounds for an arrest, the police first rush to arrest a suspect, take him into custody and, through what is euphemistically called ‘sustained interrogation’, make up a case.” The paper further said: “The time has come for the government to give serious consideration to professionalising criminal investigation across the country and ending the tyranny of rules framed in the 19th century.”
Meanwhile, another question arises. Can one sue the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu for encouraging her police to leak out alleged evidence even before the court hears it? Is that proper? Importantly, is that legal? With what seems a clear case of vengefulness, the Tamil Nadu government has frozen as many as 183 bank accounts of the Kanchi Mutt, making it almost impossible for the Mutt's aid centres, hospitals, educational institutions and Veda pathashalas to function. The Telegraph (January 14) quotes one of Jayendra Saraswati's lawyers, A. Shanmugham, as saying: “This is without any basis and amounts to violation of the fundamental rights of my client.” At this point what exactly is the seer charged with? Abetment of murder? Molestation of woman devotees? Misappropriation of funds? How come Jayalalithaa is allowed to get away with her vengefulness on the theory that the law is no respecter of persons and will take its course? Is that true only of a religious head or is it equally applicable to a Chief Minister? Somebody must answer that. The Supreme Court has exposed the irrelevance of the charges so far made against the seer. Can this be used to sue Jayalalithaa for character assassination? Murder comes in all shapes and forms. The media, understandably, has been lapping up whatever material it comes across.
It would seem that the print media these days is becoming more and more attractive to young graduates. According to The Statesman (January 8), journalism is presently drawing “hundreds of young professionals from the sciences, apart from the arts stream which was where most hailed from”. Fancy journalism inviting technical graduates including those from agriculture, veterinary, geology and other applied sciences! What is it that attracts them? Print journalism is flourishing. Again, according to The Statesman, Assam's political, commercial and educational hub, Guwahati, has 20 dailies, half of them in Assamese. Seven dailies are published from more than one centre and three Assamese dailies claim a circulation surpassing a lakh each. The print media in Assam is a major employer, with 8,000 direct jobs and indirect employment for some 20,000 persons in a state with a population of 26 million. Apparently another 400 Guwahati-based journalists work for various local, regional and national newspapers. But what marks the Assamese language media and what is not widely known outside the region, says The Statesman, is that a number of their editors are award winning and highly regarded scholars like Manoj Goswami of Dainik Janasadharan, Hemen Borgohain, formerly of Amar Asom and Kanak Sen Deka of Agradoot. Sen reportedly is the current president of the Asom Sahitya Sabha, with Borgohain being his immediate predecessor.
But what is even less known is the enormous pressure under which Assamese journalists function. They are reportedly under constant threats from insurgents, surrendered militants and even security personnel. In the last 20 years, over 20 journalists have been killed in the line of duty. And that is a sobering thought. In the earliest days, Assamese journals seemed to have only one major aim: liberating Assam from the Bengali hold. Later that was viewed as another facet of social work. But it was only following the student-led agitation against illegal migration in the early 1980s that journalism assumed a political face. And that is the face it presently wears.
Incidentally, and so far only The Telegraph (January 14) has carried the story, the Income-Tax Department is pushing for a physical assessment of offerings by Jayalalithaa, including a diamond-studded gold crown, to the Guruvayoor Sri Krishna Temple in June 2001 “in the face of opposition from the temple authorities and the Kerala government”. The crown is reportedly worth Rs 6.5 crore. How come Jayalalithaa could afford to spend Rs 6.5 crore for an offering? There are several cases against her and it is time the government took a closer look at them. Jayalalithaa is quoted by The Telegraph as saying that whatever she gifted to the temple was given to her by her supporters and devotees of Guruvayoorappan. Some explanation, that.
For far too long a time has this country put up with politicians' shenanigans. It is time the government took some action against those who have been exercising power indiscriminately, without being accountable to anyone, let alone the general public. The rubbishing of the people should be called a halt to. There has been enough of it.
Monday, February 07, 2005
Judge puts jayalalithaa’s Police in the dock
Prosecutor faces tough questions
http://www.dinakaran.com
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Courtesy: http://sankaracharyaarticles.blogspot.com/
"Bank Accounts: How can you lodge a separate case against Jayendrar? - Judge condemns the police lawyer"
Chennai, Feb 2: How can a separate case relating to Sankara Mutt Accounts be lodged against Jayendrar? The Judge condemned the police lawyer.
There are already 3 cases filed against Jayendrar: Sankararaman murder case, Auditor Radhakrishnan murder attempt case, and Thirukkottiyur Madhavan attack case. Police have filed a fourth case against Him on charges of tampering the mutt accounts. Jayendrar [Swamigal] has petitioned in Chennai High court for anticipatory bail in this case. The hearing of this came before Judge Thanikachalam.
Jayendrar's lawyer, Dinakaran: "The first information report in this case does not mention Jayendrar's name. But we fear that they may arrest him now. Hence anticipatory bail should be granted."
JUDGE (looking at the prosecutor): "Mutt accounts belong to the mutt. So there is nothing wrong if they handle their accounts. How can you lodge a complaint that they meddled with their accounts? You say that they may tamper with the witnesses in the Shankararaman’s murder case and withdraw money for that purpose. Then you could include this charge also in that case. How can you lodge under section 420? You cannot lodge a separate case for tampering the accounts."
Prosecutor Jayaprakashnarayan: "I will present a detailed petition for this. Give me some time."
Judge:" I am adjourning this hearing to March 4th."
http://www.dinakaran.com
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Courtesy: http://sankaracharyaarticles.blogspot.com/
"Bank Accounts: How can you lodge a separate case against Jayendrar? - Judge condemns the police lawyer"
Chennai, Feb 2: How can a separate case relating to Sankara Mutt Accounts be lodged against Jayendrar? The Judge condemned the police lawyer.
There are already 3 cases filed against Jayendrar: Sankararaman murder case, Auditor Radhakrishnan murder attempt case, and Thirukkottiyur Madhavan attack case. Police have filed a fourth case against Him on charges of tampering the mutt accounts. Jayendrar [Swamigal] has petitioned in Chennai High court for anticipatory bail in this case. The hearing of this came before Judge Thanikachalam.
Jayendrar's lawyer, Dinakaran: "The first information report in this case does not mention Jayendrar's name. But we fear that they may arrest him now. Hence anticipatory bail should be granted."
JUDGE (looking at the prosecutor): "Mutt accounts belong to the mutt. So there is nothing wrong if they handle their accounts. How can you lodge a complaint that they meddled with their accounts? You say that they may tamper with the witnesses in the Shankararaman’s murder case and withdraw money for that purpose. Then you could include this charge also in that case. How can you lodge under section 420? You cannot lodge a separate case for tampering the accounts."
Prosecutor Jayaprakashnarayan: "I will present a detailed petition for this. Give me some time."
Judge:" I am adjourning this hearing to March 4th."
‘I have not given any such statement to the police’: Raghu
Statement fabricated by Police
Another non-confession!
Young Raghu strides into court Feb 4th
http://www.dinamani.com, Feb 4 2005.
Courtesy: http://sankaracharyaarticles.blogspot.com/
"The statement alleged to be mine, which was published in the newspapers, is a lie": Raghu
Kanchipuram, Feb 4: In the Kanchipuram court on Thursday, Raghu said "The Statement published in newspapers supposed to be my statement is a lie" creating a stir.
The accused in the Sankararaman murder case Vijayendrar [Swamigal], His brother Raghu, former Math manager Sundaresa Iyer and chief accused in the case, Mattu Bhaskar, Silverstar (A) Stalin were presented to the court for extending their custody.
The "false surrenderers" Dil Pandian, Satish, Arumugam, Devaraj, Arul and the accused who supposedly abetted them, Kuruvi Ravi, Pazhani, Shekhar, Meenakshisundaram, Kumar, and Anandakumar were brought from Chennai Central Prison at 2.30pm to appear before Kanchipuram court magistrate Uththamaraj.
Temple Prasadam for Vijayendrar [Swamigal]: Then lawyer Shanmugam gave kumkum Prasadam to Vijayendrar. [Swamiji] accepted it and applied on His forehead.
Raghu's complaint: Then Raghu told Magistrate Uththamaraj thus:
Raghu: "The published statement in News papers saying it was given by me is a lie. I have not given any such statement to the police."
Magistrate: Why do you worry about the news papers? I cannot accept what you are saying. You can tell your opinions during the hearing.
Lawyer Shanmugam: Has the chargesheet in connection with this case been registered in the court?
Magistrate: Charge sheet has been registered in the court. The number is (P.R.C. 2/2005)
Lawyer Shanmugam: Order has to be given to extend the custody until 10th.
All Other Accused requested: Police have not given us food. We are tired. Our relatives have come. We should be permitted to meet them. For this the judge, Uththamaraj asked the police inspector Gurusamy who brought the accused to give them food and let them meet their relatives.
Sanskrit Book in Vijayendrar [Swamigal]'s hand: Vijayendrar [Swamigal] was holding "Soundaryalahari Bhashyam" Sanskrit book in his hand when He came to court.
Raghu to journalists: Some journalists went to see Raghu who was sitting in the van. He told them:
"I did not give any statement to them. The news papers have published the statement like a screen film story. They should publish my denial also."
Ravi Subramaniam: The second accused turned approver in the Sankararaman murder case was brought and presented to Magistrate Uththamaraj at 10.30 am itself. Uththamaraj gave order to extend the custody for all 17 accused until Feb 10th.
Another non-confession!
Young Raghu strides into court Feb 4th
http://www.dinamani.com, Feb 4 2005.
Courtesy: http://sankaracharyaarticles.blogspot.com/
"The statement alleged to be mine, which was published in the newspapers, is a lie": Raghu
Kanchipuram, Feb 4: In the Kanchipuram court on Thursday, Raghu said "The Statement published in newspapers supposed to be my statement is a lie" creating a stir.
The accused in the Sankararaman murder case Vijayendrar [Swamigal], His brother Raghu, former Math manager Sundaresa Iyer and chief accused in the case, Mattu Bhaskar, Silverstar (A) Stalin were presented to the court for extending their custody.
The "false surrenderers" Dil Pandian, Satish, Arumugam, Devaraj, Arul and the accused who supposedly abetted them, Kuruvi Ravi, Pazhani, Shekhar, Meenakshisundaram, Kumar, and Anandakumar were brought from Chennai Central Prison at 2.30pm to appear before Kanchipuram court magistrate Uththamaraj.
Temple Prasadam for Vijayendrar [Swamigal]: Then lawyer Shanmugam gave kumkum Prasadam to Vijayendrar. [Swamiji] accepted it and applied on His forehead.
Raghu's complaint: Then Raghu told Magistrate Uththamaraj thus:
Raghu: "The published statement in News papers saying it was given by me is a lie. I have not given any such statement to the police."
Magistrate: Why do you worry about the news papers? I cannot accept what you are saying. You can tell your opinions during the hearing.
Lawyer Shanmugam: Has the chargesheet in connection with this case been registered in the court?
Magistrate: Charge sheet has been registered in the court. The number is (P.R.C. 2/2005)
Lawyer Shanmugam: Order has to be given to extend the custody until 10th.
All Other Accused requested: Police have not given us food. We are tired. Our relatives have come. We should be permitted to meet them. For this the judge, Uththamaraj asked the police inspector Gurusamy who brought the accused to give them food and let them meet their relatives.
Sanskrit Book in Vijayendrar [Swamigal]'s hand: Vijayendrar [Swamigal] was holding "Soundaryalahari Bhashyam" Sanskrit book in his hand when He came to court.
Raghu to journalists: Some journalists went to see Raghu who was sitting in the van. He told them:
"I did not give any statement to them. The news papers have published the statement like a screen film story. They should publish my denial also."
Ravi Subramaniam: The second accused turned approver in the Sankararaman murder case was brought and presented to Magistrate Uththamaraj at 10.30 am itself. Uththamaraj gave order to extend the custody for all 17 accused until Feb 10th.
Her illegal action and misuse of power: detaining the Kanchi math manager under Goonda Act
Set him FREE!
http://www.dinamani.com/
February, 4 2005
Courtesy: http://sankaracharyaarticles.blogspot.com/
"Case filed by son-in-law opposing the arrest of Sundaresa Iyer under Goonda Act. High court's notice to Government."
Chennai Feb 4: The High Court has sent a notice to the Government to file a response petition in connection with the case filed opposing the arrest of Sundaresa Iyer for one year under Goonda act.
Judges M. Karpagavinayagam and T. M. Masilamani heard the habeas corpus petition filed by Sundaresa Iyer's son-in-law Mr. Ananthanarayanan on Thursday. They have ordered the notice to be sent to the Kanchipuram district collector and to the prohibition control officer asking them to present a response within 4 weeks.
The petition says:
"The order on Jan. 21st by Kanchipuram District collector without any hearing to arrest Mr. Sundaresa Iyer for one year under the Goonda's Act is illegal.
Sundaresa Iyer a law abiding citizen. He studied B.Com in Nagpur University and got a Gold Medal for standing first in the University.
He worked in Reserve bank for 36 years. After his retirement, he was serving as manager in the Sankara mutt. Only criminals who disturb the public peace are to be put under Goonda's Act by law. To put Sundaresa Iyer, who has done nothing wrong under the Goonda's Act is very unjust.
He has no connection to the Shankararaman’s murder. The reasons given for putting him under goonda act are very flimsy. A false case has been foisted on him. To ensure that he is denied liberty [on bail] in this case, he has been detained under this [act] and put in jail for one year.
He should be ordered to be freed from Chennai central prison immediately, says the petition.
http://www.dinamani.com/
February, 4 2005
Courtesy: http://sankaracharyaarticles.blogspot.com/
"Case filed by son-in-law opposing the arrest of Sundaresa Iyer under Goonda Act. High court's notice to Government."
Chennai Feb 4: The High Court has sent a notice to the Government to file a response petition in connection with the case filed opposing the arrest of Sundaresa Iyer for one year under Goonda act.
Judges M. Karpagavinayagam and T. M. Masilamani heard the habeas corpus petition filed by Sundaresa Iyer's son-in-law Mr. Ananthanarayanan on Thursday. They have ordered the notice to be sent to the Kanchipuram district collector and to the prohibition control officer asking them to present a response within 4 weeks.
The petition says:
"The order on Jan. 21st by Kanchipuram District collector without any hearing to arrest Mr. Sundaresa Iyer for one year under the Goonda's Act is illegal.
Sundaresa Iyer a law abiding citizen. He studied B.Com in Nagpur University and got a Gold Medal for standing first in the University.
He worked in Reserve bank for 36 years. After his retirement, he was serving as manager in the Sankara mutt. Only criminals who disturb the public peace are to be put under Goonda's Act by law. To put Sundaresa Iyer, who has done nothing wrong under the Goonda's Act is very unjust.
He has no connection to the Shankararaman’s murder. The reasons given for putting him under goonda act are very flimsy. A false case has been foisted on him. To ensure that he is denied liberty [on bail] in this case, he has been detained under this [act] and put in jail for one year.
He should be ordered to be freed from Chennai central prison immediately, says the petition.
‘Her bribe to encourage the witness to support the Government's case?’
"H. Raja's statement on J's Explanation"
http://www.dinamani.com/
Saturday February 5 2005
Courtesy: http://sankaracharyaarticles.blogspot.com/
Chennai, Feb 5: The same J who now says that Rs. 5 lakhs were paid from the CM's relief fund to Shankaraman’s family as they are in poverty, did not render help to RSS secretary Murugesan who was killed 2 years ago in Kovai, said BJP State Secretary H. Raja .
In connection with this, he released the following statement: "When Murugesan was killed by terrorists, I asked the Chief Minister twice in the Assembly to give Rs 2 lakhs to Murugesan's family, who were suffering in dire poverty. But the funds were never allocated.
In the Sankararaman murder case, just one day before the identification parade, Rs 5 lakhs were given to Shankaraman’s wife. This creates suspicion whether this is a bribe given to encourage the witness to support the Government's case.
Moreover, by submitting a petition to the High Court that the Sankara Math is not a temple, the Tamil Nadu Government has willfully wounded Hindus' sentiments.
http://www.dinamani.com/
Saturday February 5 2005
Courtesy: http://sankaracharyaarticles.blogspot.com/
Chennai, Feb 5: The same J who now says that Rs. 5 lakhs were paid from the CM's relief fund to Shankaraman’s family as they are in poverty, did not render help to RSS secretary Murugesan who was killed 2 years ago in Kovai, said BJP State Secretary H. Raja .
In connection with this, he released the following statement: "When Murugesan was killed by terrorists, I asked the Chief Minister twice in the Assembly to give Rs 2 lakhs to Murugesan's family, who were suffering in dire poverty. But the funds were never allocated.
In the Sankararaman murder case, just one day before the identification parade, Rs 5 lakhs were given to Shankaraman’s wife. This creates suspicion whether this is a bribe given to encourage the witness to support the Government's case.
Moreover, by submitting a petition to the High Court that the Sankara Math is not a temple, the Tamil Nadu Government has willfully wounded Hindus' sentiments.
he will regret all the actions she has taken against the Acharyas
Hang your heads in shame!
www.dinamalar.com/2005Feb05/imp21.asp
Courtesy: http://sankaracharyaarticles.blogspot.com/
"A New Turn in Jayendrar Swamigal's Case": Head of Karnataka Math
There will be a sudden turn soon in the Sankararaman murder case, said Kesava Duttam head of the Thai Mookambika Nellambikai Math in Karnataka State. After meeting Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal and getting his blessings, he told journalists:
"Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal has not done any crime. He is someone who, by nature, does not harm any living being. It is so saddening that a murder case has been foisted on him. This is unbearable, even to the Lord himself.
Soon, all the truths that have been suppressed will come out. Then, the world will know Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal is innocent. Then, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa will regret all the actions she has taken against Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal.
The police did not find the real killers. They have foisted a case on people who have nothing to do with the murder. Soon, there will be a sudden turn in this case. When that happens, the Tamil Nadu Government and the Police could end up in a position where they feel ashamed at their own state, and have to bow their heads down."
www.dinamalar.com/2005Feb05/imp21.asp
Courtesy: http://sankaracharyaarticles.blogspot.com/
"A New Turn in Jayendrar Swamigal's Case": Head of Karnataka Math
There will be a sudden turn soon in the Sankararaman murder case, said Kesava Duttam head of the Thai Mookambika Nellambikai Math in Karnataka State. After meeting Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal and getting his blessings, he told journalists:
"Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal has not done any crime. He is someone who, by nature, does not harm any living being. It is so saddening that a murder case has been foisted on him. This is unbearable, even to the Lord himself.
Soon, all the truths that have been suppressed will come out. Then, the world will know Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal is innocent. Then, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa will regret all the actions she has taken against Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal.
The police did not find the real killers. They have foisted a case on people who have nothing to do with the murder. Soon, there will be a sudden turn in this case. When that happens, the Tamil Nadu Government and the Police could end up in a position where they feel ashamed at their own state, and have to bow their heads down."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
