Human rights violation in the sankaracharya case

Human Rights Violations by the Tamilnadu Police

I. The United Nations, in the collective wisdom of its various Nations, has made a Universal Declaration of Human Rights consisting of 30 (thirty) Articles. The Preamble to the said Declaration states that this Declaration is made because ?

a) Disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.
b) If a man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.

II. In the light of the aforesaid avowed objectives, the violation and abuse of 12 out of the 30 Articles by the Tamilnadu State Government in the Union of India is a matter of serious concern to millions of peace loving and law abiding citizens not only in India but all over the world.

III. We give hereunder the list of such violations, in the matter of the Arrest of His Holiness Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal (aged 72 years) and His Holiness Sri Vijayendra Saraswathi Swamigal (aged 35 years) of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham; Their officers and disciples in a foisted case of murder.

IV. The facts of the case briefly are stated hereinafter. The Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham is a 2500-year-old Hindu Monastery located in Kanchipuram in the State of Tamilnadu in Union of India. The Head of this monastery is selected at a very young age, leaves his parents and relatives and resides in the Monastery itself, leads a simple and Spartan life, wears a unstitched saffron cloth just enough to cover himself, takes a frugal meal obtained as alms everyday, abstains from worldly pleasures, studies and masters all the ancient Scriptures of Hinduism, Philosophy, and Theology, meditates and prays for the welfare of mankind (irrespective of caste, creed, sex, religion, race or colour) a minimum of three times a day and preaches the lofty ideals propounded by Sri Aadhi Shankara, an Avatar (incarnation) of the Almighty Himself. The guiding principle of His prayer always is that the whole Universe prospers and be peaceful. The present Head of this Monastery is Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal (hereinafter referred to as the Senior Pontiff) aged 71 years, who had joined the Monastery some 52 years ago. The Second in the line is Sri Shankara Vijayendra Saraswathi Swamigal (hereinafter referred to as the Junior Pontiff) aged 35 years, who had joined the Monastery about 20 years ago. One Sankararaman was murdered on 3rd September 2004 in Kanchipuram. The prosecution says that this Sankararaman was a critic of the Senior Pontiff and therefore the Senior Pontiff hired assassins for money and caused his death. The Senior Pontiff was arrested on the basis of the custodial statement of a co-accused on 11th November 2004 and was granted bail by the Supreme Court on 10th January 2005 finding that there was no substance in the prosecution theory of money having been paid by the Pontiff to the killers. As the Prosecution does not have any evidence, it has been carrying on propaganda of demonisation of the Pontiffs so that they would escape the charge of malicious prosecution. The Prosecution also continues to abuse the process of law and denies basic human rights to the accused.

V. The Madras High Court has stayed the proceedings of the National Human Rights Commission on an application moved by the Tamilnadu State Government. Having obtained the Stay, the Government pursues and adds to its past actions of persecution.

VI. The following are the notable violations of the UN declaration on Human Rights. (http://www.un.org/Photos/30.htm)

1. Violation of Article 5 which reads thus: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

An accused in this case by name Kathiravan has been tortured by the Kanchipuram Police between 3rd November 2004 and 10th November 2004 and was made to state what the Police wanted him to say in a judicial confession in an ?in camera sitting? on 19th November 2004 while in custody. Later on a subsequent day in the open Court, he complained of physical torture and stated that under such conditions he gave the earlier statement. The Magistrate was kind enough to record the retraction. But however, no action has so far been initiated on his complaint of torture while in custody. Not even an investigation has been ordered in to the matter, though the matter has been placed before the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court.

News on Nov 24, 2004 when Kathiravan and Rajini retracted their confessions

I was forced to give confessional statement: accused http://www.thehindu.com/2004/11/25/ stories/2004112507720100.htm

S. Gurumurthy: It's dead. Who will do the funeral, and when? http://www.newindpress.com/Column.asp?ID=IEH20041125101450&P=old

Quoting a snippet of the article written by S. Gurumurthy.

"On November 24, Kathiravan and Rajni were brought to the Kancheepuram magistrate's court for extending their judicial remand. At that time Kathiravan wished to make a statement. The prosecution protested, 'his confession having been recorded in camera, he should not be allowed to speak'! The court overruled, asked Kathiravan to write his statement. As his hand had been rendered inoperative by the police bashing, the magistrate himself recorded his statement.

In the next few minutes, speaking extempore, Kathiravan demolished the police case against the Acharya, exposed them as fabricators of the case against him. He told the court that he, along with his friends, was arrested on November 3. Not, as the police lied, on November 9. [His lawyers had recorded this fact on Nov 3 itself] That between November 4 and November 8, under police torture he said what the police wanted him to say. That he was kept in a Marwari's house in Uthandi, on the outskirts of Chennai for two days and beaten black and blue. That he was shown to different persons as Kathiravan [so that they may say they knew him, even though they did not know him]. That from Nov 4 to 8, he was kept in 'Paramount Hotel' in Sriperumpudur in Room nos 108 and 109, and was tortured to confess 'as the police wanted'. That he was made to sign on blank sheets. That on Nov 9, he was made to stay in the office of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram, and in the night made to say, 'whatever the police wanted him to say' in front of a video camera and in the presence of the Tehsildar. That he was remanded the next day, November 10. That between Nov 15 and 17 he was pressurised to make judicial confession under sec 164 of the Penal Code 'as the police wanted'. That he was not allowed to meet his relatives, his brother too was arrested. That.... Kathiravan went on.

All this Kathiravan told a stunned court and the public totally spontaneously. He corroborated his statements with events, places, and dates. He demonstrated that the police were fixing the Acharya through him. He admitted that his confessions to the police and to the Tehsildar, used to arrest the Acharya, were obtained under duress. So the star witness against the Acharya in the court is today the star witness against the police in public!

But the more dangerous is the testimony of Rajni alias Chinna who also said that he was bashed up for days to tell lies against himself and the Acharya. He lost his teeth in police bashing. He exhibited his injuries to the court. What he said was also identical to what Kathiravan said. Yet both had never met before. He may be the smoking gun against the police who know he is not involved in the crime at all! He is a petty pickpocket, cannot even wield a blade, according to insiders.

Rajni also claimed to have a copy of the telegram he had sent to the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court complaining of the torture! Statements of Kathiravan and Rajni are highly corroborated, also spontaneous. They were all along in police custody. Even their relatives were not allowed to meet them."

2. Violation of Article 7 which reads thus: All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

There are criminal complaints pending against the investigating officer (District Superintendent of Police) S.P. Premkumar in this particular case for well over 15 years for excesses committed by him as a Police officer , violating all canons of civilised behaviour. Even the Madras High Court has made critical observations on him in 2003. The said officer who was a temporary officer has been promoted by the State Government to a senior lever of Superintendent of Police heading a District Police Administration. This is despite the officer has a track record of human rights abuse, recorded by the Courts. The same investigating officer has a record of Human rights violation. Here is one such one, which has seen no progress so far.

News Links which appeared on On 11-Oct-2004,
http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2004/819/
http://tamilinfoservice.com/manitham/sign/ngo.htm
Snippet from the news placed here
?
16 prominent human rights defenders including Mr. Henri Tiphagne, executive director of People's Watch-Tamil Nadu, had been illegally arrested by the Cuddalore police while they were conducting a human rights training program this morning (11 October 2004). The arrestees had not been charged or given the First Information Report (FIR) at the time of drafting this appeal (8:15pm Hong Kong time, 11 October 2004). AHRC (Asian Human Rights Commission) managed to reach Mr. Henri Tiphagne over the phone and learned that they he and the group has not been informed of reason for their arrest, and have not seen any document related to their arrest.
?

In the Dharmapuri Bus Burning case, despite the Madras High Court's severe condemnation, no action has been initiated on a case involving the ruling party functionaries who in 2000 protested the conviction of the present Chief Minister in a corruption case; burnt down a bus and killed three college girls in the process. While so, just based on a statement of a co-accused while in Police custody on 9th November 2004, though even that statement having been retracted before a competent court, His Holiness Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal (hereinafter referred to as the ?Senior Pontiff') of Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham was arrested on 11th November 2004, on Deepavali, a Hindu Festival day.

News link:
19-Feb-2005: HC issues stern order to TN govt.
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/feb192005/n12.asp

Snippet from the deccanherald news source is placed here.
?
Mr Justice V Kanakaraj of the Madras High Court on Friday directed the Tamil Nadu government to explain the delay in ratifying the appointment of a new public prosecutor named by him in the Dharmapuri bus burning case while ordering the transfer of the case from Krishnagiri to Salem for a fresh trial way back in August 2003.

Mr Justice Kanakaraj, while hearing a contempt petition, directed the Home Secretaries from that date till now to file a counter explaining ?every day's delay? and posted the case to Thursday next.

The case relates to the burning down of a bus belonging to Coimbatore Agricultural University which was returning after a study tour. The bus was torched by AIADMK protestors near Dharmapuri in February 2000 after a special court in Chennai convicted their leader J Jayalalitha in the Kodaikanal Pleasant Stay Hotel case. Kokilavani and two other girl students were trapped inside the bus and were charred to death.
?

This inflicted untold injury to the true followers of the Head of the 2500 year-old Kanchi Shankara Mutt, a top order Hindu Monastery. The discrimination is evident and obvious, but even the Supreme Court in India has not gone beyond the grant of bail, though its observations establish that there is no prima facie case against the Senior Pontiff. This has encouraged the State Government to foist more and more such false cases periodically over the past four months against the Senior Pontiff and His disciples.

So much so, just within three hours of the Supreme Court granting bail to the Senior Pontiff observing effectively that the Prosecution failed to establish a direct link between the murder and the Pontiff, His Holiness Sri Shankara Vijayendra Saraswathi Swamigal (hereinafter referred to as the Junior Pontiff), the second in command of the aforesaid Monastery was arrested by the State Police on the same charges with the same set of evidence. The vindictive mood of the Tamilnadu State Government is so evident that a Police force consisting of over 140 armed Policemen entered the premises of the Monastery, a place of worship, and arrested the Junior Pontiff even as He was in the performance of His daily prayers.

News Links on 10-Jan-2005
Kancheepuram junior seer arrested: http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/jan102005/i18.asp

10-Jan-2005: Junior seer arrested, charges not clear: http://in.news.yahoo.com/050110/43/2ixi3.html

10-Jan-2005: Junior Kanchi seer held, gets judicial remand: http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/jan/10kanchi2.htm

After this, the Police further arrested Mr Sundaresa Iyer, the Manager of the Monastery and Mr Raghu, the younger brother of the Junior Pontiff. Since both the Pontiffs were granted bail by the Higher Courts, Mr Sundaresa Iyer and Mr Raghu have been detained under a draconian law by the State Government by an Administrative Order, as there is no remedy of bail in this law. This law has been slapped on these law-abiding citizens with no previous record of delinquency only to deny them their personal freedom, lest they might effectively help the Pontiffs in defending the cases foisted on Them. This slapping of Goondas law on them was against their own governmental circular that was distributed earlier. The news links for it is produced below:

17-Feb-2005: Raghu's detention under Goondas Act wrong :
http://www.chennaionline.com/colnews/newsitem.asp?
NEWSID=%7BB81F9614%2D8DBB%2D46CE%2D965F%2DC4A106C8F34A%7D&CATEGORYNAME=Chennai

18-Feb-2005: Sundaresa, Raghu wrongly held under Goondas Act:
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/feb182005/n5.asp

17-Feb-2005: Iyer, Raghu wrongly held under Goondas Act: Official:
http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=280479

Snippet from the chennaionline news placed here
?
'Raghu's detention under Goondas Act wrong'
Rajapalayam (TN), Feb 17: The detention of Raghu, brother of junior
Sankaracharya, Sri Vijayendra Saraswathi, and Sundaresa Iyer, manager of the
Kanchi mutt, both accused in the Sankararaman murder case, under the Goondas Act appears to be a clear violation of a Tamil Nadu government's recent directive on detentions under the stringent law. The circular, issued last month to the district collectors and SPs, had asked them to ensure that, while ordering detention of a person under the Act, there was at least one "adverse" case or more cases against the detenu other than the ground case.
The circular had been issued in the light of observations made by the Supreme Court. The apex court held in a case that a solitary instance of robbery, as mentioned in the grounds for detention under the Goondas Act in a criminal case, was not relevant for sustaining the order of detention for the purpose of preventing the persons from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, an official said on condition of anonymity. Besides, the Advisory Board, empowered to review the detentions under the Act, had also taken a stand that for the solitary offence under Section 302 IPC (murder), the normal law would take care, and, hence, there may not be any detention under the said Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 against such individuals as "Goondas."

....

3. Violation of Article 8 which reads thus: Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted by him by the constitution or by law.

As already outlined, Mr Sundaresa Iyer and Mr Raghu have been detained under the Law for curbing habitual offenders only to deny them the otherwise legally available process of bail. While even the first case on them is foisted and has no prima facie evidence, the draconian law has been applied on them to create a fear psychosis in the minds of the disciples of the Pontiffs, so that the Pontiffs would stand isolated in the Society and their reputation might get tarnished. On the other hand, when the National Human Rights Commission commenced its enquiry proceedings the State Government applied to the High Court and obtained a stay of the proceedings of the National Human Rights Commission. If the proceedings of the National Human Rights Commission were delayed thus, justice would not be rendered, as Justice delayed is justice denied. Similarly on a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by the said Mr Sundaresa Iyer and Mr Raghu have been posted by the Madras High Court for reply by the State Government after one month, effectively denying them any possibility of a bail.

Here are the news links.
Jan-22-2005: Raghu, Sundaresa Iyer detained under Goondas Act: http://news.indiainfo.com/2005/01/22/2201goondas.html

Jan-22-2005: Police invoke Goondas Act against Raghu, Kanchi mutt manager:
http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/jan/22kanchi.htm

27-Jan-2005: NHRC notice to TN govt stayed: http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=275904

01-Feb-2005: Manager challenges detention under Goondas Act:
http://news.indiainfo.com/2005/02/01/0102muttiyer.html

4. Violation of Article 9 which reads thus: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Even the Supreme Court of India observed, in its order dated 10th January 2005, that the prosecution does not have any evidence to link the Pontiffs to the murder directly. The prosecution had made false claims of evidence of money transfer in its representations before the lower courts, State level Madras High Court and the Supreme Court of India from the date of arrest i.e. 11th November 2004 to 3rd January 2005 at the Supreme Court, wherein to a pointed query from the Supreme Court, the prosecution could not provide the evidence to this effect. On the said day, the Prosecution stated that it had the some other evidence of money payment to hired killers and even this was disproved in the Supreme Court.

Thus the arrests of both the Pontiffs, the Manager of the Monastery and the younger brother of the Junior Pontiff all have been based on a retracted confession while in custody. It now has merged that the arrest in the first place was without any direct evidence and therefore arbitrary. The detention is arbitrary because the repeated denials of bail by the lower courts were based on false representations of evidence made by the prosecution and the non-verification of such facts adequately by the lower courts. The Senior Pontiff was thus arbitrarily detained for 60 days in the prison. The Junior Pontiff was thus arbitrarily detained for 30 days in the prison. The Manager of the Monastery and the brother of the Junior Pontiff are detained under a special law and denied bail.

That is not all. The Supreme Court while granting bail to the Senior Pontiff had not prevented his free movement within India. But the State Government has filed a petition in the Supreme Court effectively asking for the Exile of the Senior Pontiff from any five States of the South
Indian Peninsula on frivolous grounds. The State Government is bent upon curtailing the personal freedom and liberty of innocent Spiritual Leaders for its political gains.

As stated earlier under Paragraph 2 above, Mr Sundaresa Iyer and Mr Raghu have been detained arbitrarily under a Preventive Detention Law by an administrative order and the remedy of bail is not available to them under this law.

This violates Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which reads thus:

?It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgement.?

5. Violation of Article 10 which reads thus: Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

As stated earlier, the arrest in the first instance is without any direct evidence. It is based only on an oral statement given to Police while in custody and that too obtained by torture. While so, the Magistrate Court has remanded the Pontiffs, the Manager and the brother of a Pontiff in a mechanical manner to judicial custody again and again. Not only that, the Courts up to the State High Court level denied bails on the basis of the Prosecution Statements without verifying the facts. The fundamental right of freedom of movement and the right to bail have been periodically denied without any legal basis.

6. Violation of Article 11(1) which reads thus: Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

While the matter is before the Courts, the Prosecution carries on propaganda in the public visual and print media stating that the Pontiffs are guilty. They have commenced a trial by the media and are feeding the media with false information, so as to demonise the Pontiffs and create a prejudice in the minds of the Public. More importantly, every time the Courts were to hear the bail applications of these Pontiffs, the prosecution fed the media with negative views on the Pontiffs, thereby creating a prejudice even in the minds of the judiciary hearing them so much so a lower court Magistrate made observations which were in line with the Prosecution theory, though these accusations were proved wrong later in the Courts themselves.

Take this instance of alleged confession by the Sankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati, which are blatantly false. The police plant these stories deliberately. Jayendra Saraswati never made these statements, but the police continue to mislead the lower courts and the common man by planting such stories. This pattern of using alleged confessional statements and releasing to the press can be seen throughout this episode.

News Link: 10 Minutes in a life: http://www.outlookindia.com/
full.asp?sid=1&fodname=20041206&fname=Shankaracharya+%28F%29

The snippet from the article goes as follows:
...
With tears rolling down his cheeks, Jayendra Saraswati, the Shankaracharya of the Kanchi math, has admitted to his role in the murder of A. Sankararaman, manager of the Varadarajaperumal temple in Kanchipuram. Over three days (November 19-21) at the All-Women's police station in Kanchipuram, Jayendra Saraswati unburdened himself to three superintendents of police.
...
One member of the interrogation team said the Shankaracharya, in a "repentful mood", admitted that Sankararaman had become a thorn in his flesh with his letters (over three years) threatening to expose the wrongdoings at the math. The letters left him "sleepless, tortured and deeply upset". The "empire" the Shankaracharya had painfully built up over two decades was being destabilised. "His sensational allegations angered me. It would anger anybody," Jayendra Saraswati told the police.
...

The Prosecution Counsels appeared in the Public television channels making all kinds of casteist / racist accusations against the Pontiffs. Here is an link to an interview that was given by the senior prosecutor K.TS Tulsi.

01-Dec-2004: For them a Brahmin is above the law: http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/dec/01inter.htm

The paragraph that relates to his highly casteist comment is reproduced below:

Question by Rediff : In religious institutions and associations such pamphleteering goes on, it is not a new thing. Nobody can be blamed for not taking it seriously.

Answer by KTS Tulsi : I agree with you. But what about Radhakrishna? (the Shankaracharya is also accused of masterminding the assault on G Radhakrishnan, a former aide, and some others in September 2002). What happened when he was beaten up severely? It was a murderous attack. His daughter and wife were beaten up by the same gang that killed Sankararaman. Even then all of them (the seer's supporters) remained in sound slumber. Radhakrishnan is shouting from the rooftops that all kind of wrong things are going on in the Kanchi Mutt.

Shouldn't they have put their house in order? They (the Shankaracharya's supporters) are shooting the messenger. What is Jayalalithaa's fault? Is it that she has allowed the law to take its own course? Is she not supposed to? Perhaps not. Because for them a Brahmin is above the law!

Who has mentioned that "a Brahmin is above the law?" . The senior public prosecutor KTS Tulsi, is both asking the question and giving the answer. He is trying to brainwash the public even at such early stages of the trial. This is a mockery of the law that says that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Note the statement Shouldn't they have put their hose in order? What does that mean? He is once again talking as if His Holiness, the Sankaracharya is proven guilty. Consider the defamatory prosecutor's statement in light of Supreme Court's judgement in granting him bail. A snippet of the judgement reads ...

"...That based on the evidence (or lack of it) provided by the prosecution, even a prima facie case does not exist for implicating HH Sri Jayendra Saraswati Swami and the prosecution has solely relied on confessions and allegations which cannot be relied on as independent evidence ..."

Public Prosecutor K. Duraisamy went even to the extent of passing the verdict in the Madras High Court itself stating that ?the Pontiff is an undeserving Criminal? , and the Honourable Judge had not reined in such utterances. By creating prejudice in the minds of judiciary by an orchestrated campaign, the Pontiffs have been denied the guarantee necessary for their defence.

As proof of his statement, we are presenting to you the news article related to this along with the paragraph snippet related to this statement.
11-Nov-2004: Behind the Arrest: http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2124/stories/20041203006100400.htm

The acharya's counsel, I. Subramaniam, pressed for an "interim arrangement", which would allow him to stay in a place other than the prison. Counsel said this was necessary because the acharya had to perform puja every day from morning to evening. But Duraisamy opposed any such arrangement. He said: "... There is a limit for special treatment. He is the most undeserving criminal, deserving no special treatment. We are also devotees of the mutt. We respect the seat but not the individual who is occupying it."

Blatant lies and planted stories are placed in the media at regular intervals. Here is one of them, in which Raghu is quoted as having given a confession. Raghu, later to the magistrate, complained about this, but the damage had already been done.

Jan-29-2005:?Acharyas pooled in money for murder': http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=63694

Feb-03-2005: Junior Seer's brother denies making any confession: http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/001200502032169.htm

Snippet from the alleged confession (Indian Express)
...
M K Raghu, who has been charged on six counts in the case including murder, allegedly told the Special Investigation Team in a statement , accessed by The Sunday Express, that he had handed over the money, which was diverted from accounts of two trusts associated with the Kanchi Mutt, to Jayendra on Vijayendra's instructions.
...

Snippet from the denial of Raghu in front of Magistrate
...
In the middle of the remand proceedings, Raghu moved closer to the Magistrate and in a loud voice said he needed to tell something. "The papers have published the news that I have confessed or made some statement to the police during interrogation. I want to say here that it is all untrue. I have made no such statement," he said.

The Magistrate told Raghu that the court was not the place to be used for refuting media reports and declined to record his protest regarding the reports carried recently.

Later, Mutt counsel A Shanmugham, talking to reporters, charged the police with fabricating a statement and claiming that it was witnessed by two persons. It was "all wrong" and Raghu wanted to bring this to the notice of the court and others, he added.
...

7. Violation of Article 12 which reads thus: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

The prosecution accused in the Madras High Court that the Senior Pontiff's lady disciple was being paid substantial amounts of money and she had connections to the murder, even without verifying facts, only to prejudice the minds of the Judiciary to deny bail to the Senior Pontiff. Soon the said Lady, in her late forties, appeared in public and proved to the Court and the public that she was a poor destitute woman suffering from cancer for over 10 years. The Monastery had supported her morally and financially on humanitarian grounds to sustain and to get treated. The prosecution has interfered with the privacy of a devotee and attacked on her reputation without any rhyme or reason. None of the Courts hearing these matters raised a word against the prosecution so far and this silence has encouraged the prosecution to further proceed in these lines.

Another partner of Seer; A woman in Srirangam : http://news.indiainfo.com/2004/11/30/3011woman.html

Usha just a beneficiary of Seer's 'generous help' : http://news.indiainfo.com/2004/11/30/3011usha.html

...
"We wanted to interrogate her but she had made herself scarce and is absconding," Tulsi, Senior Supreme Court lawyer, appearing for the Tamil Nadu Government, had said.

In the counter-affidavit, police had contended that the conversation between the Seer and Usha used to last even for 900 pulse units. The woman was provided with free quarters and large amount of money, which was periodically transferred to her through bank transactions.

"Her involvement in the conspiracy and other allied matters were being probed since the Seer regularly spoke to her before and after the murder," police had contended.

Usha drove from Chennai to the District police office in Kancheepuram and appeared before the Additional Superintendent of police, Bhuvaneshwari.

Sudha Ramalingam, her advocate said that since Usha heard the TV news last night (Nov 29, 2004) saying that she was absconding, she chose to present herself before the police.

Sudha said that that this was not 'surrender'. She was only presenting herself. Usha is blameless and there is no case on her now. "Usha has been suffering from many ailments from the time she was 20 years old and she is now suffering from breast cancer." She had to undergo many sittings of chemotherapy and had to be hospitalised several times. It was her husband, Narayanan, who had approached the Kanchi Acharya for medical help.

Narayanan "went broke" in business and following heavy debts, he deserted Usha. The medical expenses were met because of the help from the mutt and Usha's relatives, Sudha said adding that the police had visited her house in Srirangam, near Tiruchirappalli, and made enquiries there on October 12.

The police did not find it necessary to make any further investigations, but the house owners became uneasy about it and Usha had to vacate the house. She has been staying with her relatives in Chennai all these days, Sudha said.

Usha's brother, Jagannathan, who was also present during the press conference, said at one stage that, Usha went to the extent of trying to commit suicide because of her ill health and the lack of means to meet her health expenses. Adding, "It was then that she received help as well as solace from the Kanchi Acharya."
...

They summoned a media personality, a 22-year young lady Swarnamalya as a witness after planting third rated stories in the media about her. The rumor that was circulated about Swarnamalya went something like this (Translated from tamil daily)

Ramya Krishanan's Hyderabad house has been raided by the police, because they suspect that she had given asylum to the contract killer Appu. Police have said to be found lot of incriminating evidence against the Neelambari. Now they may approach the court to get the actress under police custody.

In the case of Swarnamayla things are moving faster. The court had already sent summons to her. Police are trying to interrogate the real reason behind her visit to Sankara mutt. When there was a rift in the married life of Swarnamalya, the couple went to be mutt to seek advice. The mutt seemed to have advised a separation. Ravi Subramanyam, who is hunted by the police in connection with the Sankararaman murder is said to be close with Swarnamalya in the past. He had even bought her a house.

Apart from these, the police is going to interrogate some other present and ex- actresses. The whole of Kollywood is rather stunned about this connection of actresses with Sankar mutt!

She appeared before the Police and denied all accusations . She had to make a media appearance and deny these stories to salvage her honour and reputation. The police regularly feed the media with such sensational statements like "Ramya Krishanan's Hyderabad house has been raided by the police, because they suspect that she had given asylum to the contract killer Appu. Police have said to be found lot of incriminating evidence against the Neelambari. Now they may approach the court to get the actress under police custody.", "the police is going to interrogate some other present and ex- actresses", etc in order to mislead the public and create sensationalism. They wanted to defame the reputation of His Holiness Sri Jayendra Saraswati and conveniently keep feeding the press stories like they suspect this (insert a major personality) or they have incriminating evidence etc. There had been no protection of the law against such attacks on family, honour and reputation by the State Police and the Courts have not interfered despite the fact that case diaries have been placed before them by the Police from time to time. If anyone were to contend that a separate application has to be moved before the Courts, then the faith in the administration of justice in the eyes of the public would be marred.

8. Violation of Article 14(1) which reads thus: Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

At the time of opposing the bail applications of the Senior Pontiff the State Police stated that the Senior Pontiff had plans to escape to Nepal from Mahbubnagar, where a helicopter was kept ready for the purpose. It is anybody's guess how a person could escape by helicopter travelling more than 3000 kilometres!

The underlying message though had been that the State Government is aware that there is no evidence against the Pontiffs and therefore the Government of Nepal being the only Hindu Government in the world might invite the Pontiffs to stay in that Country granting the Pontiffs political asylum from the persecution launched by the Tamilnadu State Government. Only in an effort to deny this basic human right enshrined in the UN Declaration as quoted above, the prosecution had been oft repeating this lie both in the High Court and Supreme Court.

9. Article 18 reads thus: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

The Pontiffs were denied the opportunity of carrying Their sacred idols for worship inside the Prison. For nearly 24 hours both the Pontiffs were in Police/ judicial custody. The 2500-year-old Hindu Monastery has certain Sacred idols who had been worshipped for 2500 years continuously by either the Head of the Monastery or His deputy by performing the prayer rituals personally. The State Government by arresting the Junior Pontiff even as the Supreme Court granted bail to the Senior Pontiff ensured that the morning and afternoon Prayers to the Sacred idols were not carried out by any of the Pontiffs on 11th January 2005. The depth of injury would be felt more if one notes the point that the arrest and detention itself were arbitrary and without sufficient or direct evidence.

10. Violation of Article 19 which reads thus: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Also read Article 14 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as under:

The press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order (order public) or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice;

The Police regularly fed the print and the visual media with false and malicious information about the Pontiffs in an effort to demonise them. The Prosecution wants to present the Pontiffs as evil before the public so that basic human rights can be denied to Them and They can be persecuted. While so, Mr Gurumurthy, a Chartered Accountant and Columnist, had been writing truth in this matter and these articles were published by an English Daily Newspaper ?The New Indian Express? and a Tamil magazine ?Thuglak?. Mr Gurumurthy was summoned by the Police and was questioned. He did not relent and continued to express his views and these were also published by these News Journals. Therefore the Prosecution has slapped a criminal case on him and have questioned the proprietors of these journals, in an intimidating move. The freedom of expression has been curtailed, but the Madras High Court has denied Mr Gurumurthy's application for stay of the proceedings in this criminal case on 21st February 2005.

11. Violation of Article 20(1) reads which reads thus: Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

The State Government has denied permissions to the followers of the Monastery for holding peaceful assembly in protest of the arbitrary arrest and detention. Repeatedly, the supporters of the Kanchi Matham are called for enquiry and are harassed. Here are some examples:

In this example, the police summon Cho Ramaswamy, a journalist writing for a Tamil magazine Tughlak. He had written some articles against the SIT and in favor of the Sankaracharya. That was enough provocation to come and talk (read intimidate) him.

Chennai, Feb 14: Cho awaits cops http://newstodaynet.com/14FEB/LD3.HTM
Special Investigation Team (SIT) personnel, probing the Sankararaman murder case, called on the Chairman and Managing Editor of The New Indian Express, Manoj Kumar Sonthalia, at his office today to question him in connection with the case filed against the newspaper's columnist and convenor of Swadesh Jagran Manch, S Gurumurthy.

Led by Mohanavelu, the inspector of Vishnu Kanchi police station, where the case against the columnist has been filed, a team of officials entered Express Estates, off Anna Salai, at around 12.30 pm. The team is also expected to call on Cho Ramaswamy, MP, who is the editor of Thuglak Tamil magazine, in the afternoon.

Though Cho Ramaswamy was waiting in the forenoon to answer the questions of the SIT, which initially issued a summons to him to appear before them and subsequently informed him that they would meet him at his office today at 11 am, the team postponed its visit to the afternoon.

In this example, the SIT (Special Investigating Team) un-necessarily and unfairly summons Bhaskaran. In the website Kanchi-Sathya.org, Bhaskaran had initiated a Campaign for Dharma and appeal to devotees to donate liberally for meeting the legal expenses of the Mutt. This is a typical intimidatory tactic used by SIT. If the court had not intervened, the next step could have been the arrest of Bhaskaran. Ofcourse the court would have granted him bail, but the police would have achieved their goals which is to intimidate.

Saturday Mar 19 2005: HC Judge wants to opt out of Mutt cases
http://www.newindpress.com/Newsitems.asp?ID=IET20050318100642&
Title=Southern+News+-+Tamil+Nadu&Topic=337&aDate=3%2F%19%2F%2005

In the website Kanchi-Sathya.org, Bhaskaran had initiated a Campaign for Dharma and appeal to devotees to donate liberally for meeting the legal expenses of the Mutt. That was enough of a provocation for the SIT to summon him to appear before them and explain.

A visibly irritated judge told the prosecution, ?If you need any information from anyone on anything, you may as well go to the person concerned and enquire instead of summoning them...?

Wondering whether the SIT wasn't engaged in a fishing expedition, the judge told the prosecution to advise their client to stick to the case before it instead of branching off in various directions.

12. Violation of Article 30 which reads thus: Nothing in this declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedom set forth herein.

The State Government of Tamilnadu in the Union of India had been engaging in an activity to cause destruction to the rights and freedom set forth in the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights as hereinabove presented.

It is a matter of grave concern that while the Courts in India have remanded the arrested to judicial custody without verifying prima facie evidence, the bail applications are heard after many adjournments and mostly they are denied despite the absence of evidence. Moreover, the State Government's application for stay of the National Human rights Commission's enquiry is immediately granted, while the Columnist's application for stay of a stifling criminal case is denied on 21st February 2005. A person inside the Prison and in Police custody lodges a criminal complaint of intimidation against the Pontiff and the same is acted upon immediately. An observation by the Madras High Court that there is no merit in the complaint leave alone the case in one of the criminal cases filed against the Senior Pontiff is ignored by the State Government that pursues the same case with more vigour than ever before.