Jayalalithaa, Her Highness on a Higher Platform !
See the picture on the left. Jayalalithaa has the arrogance (I apologise if it was due to ignorance) to sit on a higher plane than H.H. Shri Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal, Peetathipathi of the ancient Kanchi Mutt. And look at the picture on the right which shows how a true devotee sits at the Lotus Feet of Guru. From time immemorial, even the mighty emperors never sat on a higher plane than their gurus’.
She chose to do this when she was treating him as his main Guru. Now with relations strained when she conspired to get him arrested on the day of Deepavali in November 2004 to the consternation of millions of Hindu devotees all over the world, no wonder she now adores herself as a Hindu Goddess and allows her party-men to erect hoardings depicting her as “Hanuman, Lakhsmi etc. “
And magazines like OUTLOOK ( it is similar to the yellow magazine in Tamil “NAKKEERAN” ) claiming themselves to be rationalists always thrive by throwing mud on Hindu saints and Hindu leaders. Its Chief Editor Mr. Vinod Mehta is an embodiment of untruth and meanness. He gave an interview to BBC after the arrest of HH JS Swamigal which was brimming with lies and controversies.
Mr Farok Merat, a retired Professor of the University of Paris who had for years been a disciple of Maha Periyavaal, of Kanchi Peetam, unable to withstand this blatant sacrilege committed against Kanchi Mutt and Periyavaals rose to fight against BBC that broadcast the interview under its world programme and later published it on its web site.
He along with a few others in the US and in India fought a continuous battle against the BBC and recently BBC acknowledged partly its fault in publishing certain portions of the scurrilous interview with Mr. Vinod Mehta, but however removed everything relating to the interview from its website and assured not to republish or mention it anywhere.
BBC had the magnanimity to own its mistake. Will OUTLOOK own its mistakes.? Will its Chennai based correspondent Mr. S. Anand (Hidden in the initial “S” is “Stephen”- do you see any motive here?) also be censured like Vinod Mehta? Time will tell.
JJ and her supporters in the media and in the TN government have already started suffering setbacks, right from the day the bail was granted to Periyavaal by the Honourable Supreme Court of India observing that there was no “ Prima facie case against the Sankarachaarya”.
Later the same court transferred the case outside the Tamil Nadu, admitting a petition by Periyavaal. The Supreme Court in its judgement passed many strictures against the Tamil Nadu Government and the State Machinery. The relevant and pertinent sentences are reproduced below which will show how far the Tamil Nadu Governmnet has gone in harassing our Periyavaal by falsely implicating him in the murder of Sakararaman.
“……………………………………………………………………………..
23. We have discussed above many facets of the case which do show that the State machinery in Tamil Nadu is not only taking an undue interest but is going to any extent in securing the conviction of the accused by any means and to stifle even publication of any article or expression of dissent in media or press, interview by journalists or persons who have held high positions in public life and are wholly unconnected with the criminal case. The affidavits and the documents placed on record conclusively establish that a serious attempt has been made by the State machinery to launch criminal prosecution against lawyers, who may be even remotely connected with the defence of the accused. The Superintendent of Police, SIT and police inspector connected with the investigation even went to the extent of prompting the approver Ravi Subramaniam to make insinuation against a very senior counsel, who has been practicing for over 43 years and is appearing as counsel for the petitioner. The other counsel had to file writ petitions in the Madras High Court for seeking a direction for transferring investigation of the criminal cases registered against them from the local police to CBI. The police submitted charge-sheet against two junior lady lawyers under various sections of IPC including Section 201 IPC when even accepting every word in the FIR lodged by Smt. Chitra wife of Ravi Subramaniam (approver) as correct, no offence under the said provision is made out. Clause (1) of Article 22, which finds place in Part III of the Constitution of India dealing with Fundamental Rights, gives a guarantee to a person arrested and detained to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. Section 303 of Code of Criminal Procedure says that any person accused of an offence before a criminal court or against whom proceedings are instituted under the Code, may of right be defended by a pleader of his choice. Even under the British Rule when Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, was enacted, Section 340(1) thereof gave a similar right to an accused. It is elementary that if a lawyer whom the accused has engaged for his defence is put under a threat of criminal prosecution, he can hardly discharge his professional duty of defending his client in a fearless manner. A senior and respected counsel is bound to get unnerved if an insinuation is made against him in court that he approached the wife of a witness for not giving evidence against the accused in the court. From the material placed before us we are prima facie satisfied that a situation has arisen in the present case wherein the lawyers engaged by the petitioner and other co-accused cannot perform their professional duty in a proper and dignified manner on account of various hurdles created by the State machinery. The lawyers would be more concerned with shielding their own reputation or their liberty rather than cross-examining the prosecution witnesses for eliciting the truth. The constant fear of not causing any annoyance to the prosecution witnesses specially those of the police department would loom large over their mind vitally affecting the defence of the accused. Passing of the detention order against 16 co-accused soon after grant of bail to the petitioner by this Court on 10.1.2005, which order could be of some support in seeking parity or otherwise for securing bail in the present murder case, is a clear pointer to the fact that the State wanted to deprive them of any chance to secure release from custody. Even though this Court has issued notice on the special leave petition filed by the State against the order of the High Court by which Habeas Corpus petition of the 16 co-accused was allowed, yet the observations made in the said order show in unmistakable terms that the even tempo of life was not disturbed, nor the public order was affected by the murder of Sankararaman and the detention order was passed without any basis. Again, the action of the State in directing the banks to freeze all the 183 accounts of the Mutt in the purported exercise of the power conferred under Section 102 Cr.P.C., which had affected the entire activities of the Mutt and other associated trusts and endowments only on the ground that the petitioner, who is the head of the Mutt, has been charge sheeted for entering into a conspiracy to murder Sankararaman, leads to an inference that the State machinery is not only interested in securing conviction of the petitioner and the other co-accused but also to bring to a complete halt the entire religious and other activities of the various trusts and endowments and the performance of Pooja and other rituals in the temples and religious places in accordance with the custom and traditions and thereby create a fear psychosis in the minds of the people. This may deter any one to appear in court and give evidence in defence of the accused. Launching of prosecution against prominent persons who have held high political offices and prominent journalists merely because they expressed some dissent against the arrest of the petitioner shows the attitude of the State that it cannot tolerate any kind of dissent, which is the most cherished right in a democracy guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution.
24. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the material on record, we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner and other co-accused of the case have a reasonable apprehension that they will not get justice in the State of Tamil Nadu. We would like to clarify here that we are casting no reflection on the district judiciary in the State of Tamil Nadu. But it is the actions of the prosecuting agency and the State machinery, which are responsible for creating a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner and other co-accused that they will not get justice if the trial is held in any place inside the State of Tamil Nadu. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the interest of justice requires that the trial may be transferred to a place outside the State of Tamil Nadu.
25. The next question which arises for consideration is as to where the sessions case should be transferred. Shri F.S. Nariman, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the case may be transferred to any adjoining district like Chittoor, Nellore, Cuddapah or Tirupati in the State of Andhra Pradesh as about one-third of the judicial officers in the said State and particularly in the aforesaid districts are conversant with Tamil language. It is also submitted that in view of Section 277 Cr.P.C. if the witness does not give statement in the language of the Court, a translation of the evidence in the language of the Court has to be prepared as the examination of the witness proceeds and, therefore, transferring the case to a district which is not Tamil speaking is also permissible under law. Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, learned counsel for the respondents, has submitted that if at all the case is transferred, it should be transferred to Pondicherry as the language spoken there is Tamil and it is only at a distance of 70 kms. From Kanchipuram. In our opinion, while directing transfer of a criminal case the language spoken by the witnesses assumes great importance as translation of deposition of a witness apart from being a difficult job, often does not carry the same sense which the witness wants to convey. The convenience of the prosecuting agency, especially in a case where there are large number of witnesses and documents, has also an important bearing. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the case may be transferred to Pondicherry as there will be no difficulty in recording the evidence in the same language in which almost all the witnesses would depose and with which the presiding judge would be familiar. It is only at a short distance from Kanchipuram and the witnesses would not face much inconvenience in going there.
26. The transfer petition is accordingly allowed. The Sessions Case No.197 of 2005 pending before the Principal Sessions Court, Chenglepet, is transferred to the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, who may either try the case himself or assign it to any other Sessions Judge competent to try the same. All applications stand disposed of.”
JJ MADAM !! ANSWER THESE RIDDLES !!!
since MARCH 1, 2006
© For Further Info or for sending your views/articles
kanchimutt2004@yahoo.co.uk
They will be added to this site if found useful. Confidentiality will be maintained