Unlike Jayalalitha who keeps on dodging her
appearance before the Special Court, Bangalore hearing the Disproportionate
Assets case against her and others, for deposing under Section 313 CrPc after
the court examined all witnesses, the two Sankaracharyas of Kancheepuram Mutt
appeared before the Principal District and Sessions court in Puducherry on July
18, for deposing to the judge, possibly because their conscience was clear or
they had atoned their conscience. The sessions judge posed as many as 540
questions and they replied. When the judge finally asked them if they had
anything to tell the court, they said that they were innocent, wrongly
implicated and that a false case had been foisted on them (by the ADMK regime
in 2004). The judge also said they could submit their views in writing to the
court.
They were implicated in a murder case that grabbed
media headlines in 2004. The SIT police probing the case arrested the two seers
in connection with the case and subsequently even named them as the prime
accused. The Supreme Court later transferred the trial from the Principal
sessions court, Chengalpet to the Principal district and sessions court,
Puducherry citing the following reasons in its order:
“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 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 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 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 CrPc, 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, 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.
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.”
The section of the media which go out of the way in
defending Jayalalitha and those persons who vociferously promoted her cause
during the elections and thereafter like Cho Ramaswamys and Gurumurthis will
not and cannot counter the statement of the seers that false cases were foisted
against them by her regime or the observations of the Supreme Court while
transferring the case, indicting her regime for misusing the police and
prosecution authority. In fact, it was widely reported then that the case
against the seers was consequent to their incurring the ire of the two powerful
women – the dejure and defacto rulers of the State then (viz) Jayalalitha and
Sasikala, over acquiring a hospital in suburban Chennai. If a dispute over
property acquisition could impel Jayalalitha to go to this extent against
religious heads, to what extent she would move with vengeance against her
political rivals, particularly her bete noire Kalaignar and the DMK he leads, can
be understood. If the highly influencial, resourceful and powerful Kanchi
Sankaracharyas had to face so much ordeals under Jayalalitha’s inhuman regime,
the plight of other mortals is imaginable.
The apex court had vented similar and much more
indictments against her blatant misuse of official machinery while transferring
the Disproportionate Assets case to Special
Court, Bangalore,
transferring Kiruttinan murder case to Sessions court, Chittoor and delivering
judgement in TANSI case. No other rule in the country had suffered such
ignominy and condemnation repeatedly. But still she is thick skinned as her
records speak and actions taken even now.
Jayalalitha’s vengeful foisting of false cases were
not limited to her political opponents and the media but also extended to many
individuals whom she disliked or wanted to bring in line with her. It includes
Muthu, the keeper of MGR Memorial House on Arcot Road, Chennai, the son-in-law
of a Madras High Court judge who passed order against her regime, both booked
for possessing ganja, her foster son V.N.Sudhakaran booked for possession of
heroin (he was reported to have refused to part with a portion of the money he
took away from her residence) and a poor damsel of Madurai Serena who was
booked for possessing ganja. She was reported to be a paramour of Sasikala’s
husband M.Natarajan, through whom she was said to have got conceived. Panicked
over the development (a prospective heir to claim property) the ruling ladies
got her arrested, confiscated money and jewels from her, lodged her in Tiruchi
jail and reported to have been tortured her until the foetus got aborted. It
was a hot selling story for newspapers and magazines then.
There were hundreds of false cases and defamatory
cases foisted against her political opponents and media and journalists during
her two earlier regimes. The most atrocious and inhuman that was universally
condemned was the midnight arrest of Kalaignar immediately after her return to
power, under the false case of his abetment in the irregularities in the
construction of flyovers in the city by Chennai Corporation under the Mayoralty
of Thiru M.K.Stalin. Besides subjecting the leader in advanced age to torturous
handling by the police, the ADMK regime was unable to file even an FIR in the
case. Thiru Stalin was also arrested and an enquiry committee was set up to
probe the construction of flyovers. The committee presented its report to the
ADMK regime, which was not at all placed in the Assembly or released obviously
because the enquiry ended in a fiasco. In another instance Thiru Stalin along
with K.Ponmudy, E.V.Velu, J.Anbazhagan and Pugazhendi visited Queen Marys
College in Chennai, where
the girl students were observing hunger fast protesting against the move to
demolish their heritage college building for constructing the Secretariat. The
police on duty opened the gate and allowed them to enter and speak to the
students, consoling and extending support to their cause. By midnight all the
five were arrested and cases were filed against them for allegedly breaking the
lock to open the gate and creating ruckus with the girl students.
Similarly wild charges were levelled against many
DMK functionaries, arrested and imprisoned but the cases against them were not
pursued to the logical end. False cases were foisted against them, arrested and
put behind bars only to appease the irresistible urge to vent her vendetta
against the DMK.
Now in her third term Chief Minister Jayalalitha
has invented a new modus operandi to take on the DMK in a wholesale attack
throughout the state. Under the guise of taking action against instances of
land grabbing only during the DMK rule between 2006 and 2011, DMK functionaries
and cadre are exclusively targeted by the newly set up special cell in the
police force. In a neo-MISA type operation, complaints against them are
manoeuvred by coercing land buyers during the period, cases are fabricated, DMK
men arrested and put behind bars. In Tamil there is a saying ‘xU ghid nrh‰W¡F
xU nrhW gj«.’
Due to pressure from the higher ups, the haphazard manner in which the police
officers are forced to foist cases and book DMK cadre has come to light in such
a case in Kodaikanal about which a report in ‘The Times of India’ on July 15
states as:
“In an interesting twist to the Kodaikanal land
grab case in which several DMK functionaries and a senior police official have
been booked, a Chennai-based businessman filed a petition in the Madurai bench of the Madras
high court on Thursday seeking to quash the first information report (FIR).
Bhagchand Uttamchand Galada is the first accused in
the case. The charge against him is that along with the other nine accused, he
usurped Well Wynn Cottage, a property owned by the Catholic church in
Kodaikanal in Dindigul district, after forcibly evicting its caretaker John
Roger and his family. Chief vigilance officer of Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Kumbakonam region) P Sivanandi is one of the accused in the case.
Justice R Mala, before whom Galada’s petition came
up for hearing, ordered notices to Kodaikanal inspector and John Roger, the
complainant. Police had registered a case based on Roger’s complaint that the
accused had grabbed his four-acre land worth crores forcibly. He had earlier
petitioned the President.
Police have already arrested three persons,
including Kodaikanal Municipal Council chairman Mohamed Ibrahim, a DMK
functionary, and two land brokers, Sekar Sebastine and Daleep Singh. They have
been remanded in custody till July 26.
Galada maintained that he had purchased the
property from John Edward Tapp and his siblings in 1989. The property was
subsequently rented out to two people, Mani Iyer of Kodaikanal and Zavior
Michael, father of Roger. Disputes arose between him and the tenants and the
matter was settled amicably with Iyer. But Michael fabricated documents and
obtained joint patta for the property which was in his possession, Galada
alleged. Based on a complaint from Galada, officials conducted an inquiry and
ordered that Galada was the actual owner, the petition said.
The
matter then went to the high court. The court disposed of the case in August
2010 after Galada and Michael worked out a compromise. Galada said as per the
compromise formula, he had purchased a house and land worth Rs 1.5 crore in the
name of Michael. His family has already occupied that premises, the petition
said. Galada claimed Michael had handed over Well Wynn Cottage to him after the
court case ended. Roger has been staying in Chennai and has no locus standi to
claim rights over Well Wynn Cottage, the petition said. Galada said Roger filed
the new complaint to harass him. Police registered the FIR without even making
an attempt to inquire into the reasons for closure of the previous complaint,
he said.”
Another report in ‘Deccan Chronicle’ on July 20 states
as:
“The Madurai Bench of Madras high court has
suspended all action in the complaint raised by one John Roger alleging that Mr
P. Sivanandi, IG of police, had helped a ‘business heavyweight’ to grab his
property in Kodaikanal.
Hearing the petition from one D. Reuban claiming
ownership of a patch of land in Kodaikanal, which he alleged was sought to be
interfered with by John Roger, Justice R. Sudhakar posted the case to Thursday,
directing the respondents, who include the state Director General of Police,
“to desist and refrain from taking any action which will amount to interfering
with the petitioner’s property or persons till next hearing date”.
On the petitioner’s side, it was pointed out that
Roger had given a “contradictory statement” before a magistrate under section
164 CrPC that the property in question still belonged to his family whereas his
father Xavier Michael had filed a compromise petition in the Madurai high court
in August 2010 declaring that he was handing over the property to its real
owner Galada.
These reports not only raised doubts over the
bonafides of the complainant but also expose the haste with which the police
target DMK men to oblige the rulers out of the way. The first accused in the
case and the accused police officer have been spared and only the DMK
functionary has been arrested. DMK Treasurer Thiru M.K.Stalin has cautioned the
officials who foist cases against DMK cadre, that they will have to answer in
courts. What he cautioned has come true. Now not only the Kodaikanal Inspector
of Police but also the State Director General of Police have been directed to
reply in the High Court Bench in Madurai.
Incidentally, no other Tamil newspapers and other
English newspapers, which have reserved a full page to report police versions
of land grabbing cases and arrest of DMK men everyday, have not reported this
matter. The so-called investigative journals which normally probe into police
versions in order to expose them, have turned their face the other way and
still not got out of Kalaignar family and the DMK in spite of a government in
paralysis and uncertainty syndrome afflicting the ministers and bureaucracy for
over two months in Tamil Nadu. The time will come when people will turn their
faces away from these trashes when they are confronted with miseries heaped on
them by Jayalalitha regime.
No comments:
Post a Comment