kanchi-sathya.org - information on the kanchi seer, latest news on the the seer trial, facts about the kanchi mutt

Mail from Delhi – Thuglak 19-1-2005

Bail application of Jayendrar – Supreme Court arguments!

(Following is a rough translation of an excellent piece in Tamil that appeared on pages 6 & 7 of Thuglak dated 19-1-2005)

During the Supreme Court hearing on the bail application of the Kanchi Shankaracharya, Justice J. P. Mathur asked, “How did they arrest him on the basis of confessions that are inadmissible in law?” Upon which Mr. Nariman got up and said “Thank you for this question. This is a very important question which is going to determine the fate of this case.”

Mr. Nariman appealed saying that according to the tradition of the Mutt, Dhanur Masa Pooja was very important and requested that the Swamigal could be kept in custody in the Mutt itself and be allowed to perform the pooja, which has been performed without a break for so many thousand years. It is for this that the judges said, “Let us take this up on January 6th” and commented that “You have appealed a trifle late”. This is all that happened. However, the TV & other media immediately reported that ‘Bail rejected’.

On January 6th, Mr Nariman argued very minutely for nearly 45 minutes about the discrepancies & contradictions about the prosecution’s claim regarding the money paid by Sankara Mutt to carry out the murder. “First they said the money was taken out of ICICI Bank. When it was confirmed that the Mutt has no account with that bank, they said that the advance amount of Rs 50 lakhs obtained during the sale of land by Jan Kalyan Trust to Bhargava Foundations, was kept inside the Acharya’s private room. They changed the story that the money was paid from this amount. This has brought about doubts regarding the prosecution theory. This doubt alone is adequate to grant a minimum bail". This was Mr. Nariman’s argument.

It was pointed out that the money was deposited several months before the alleged date on which Bhargava Foundations paid the money. Thus, Mr. Nariman proved that the second theory of how the money was paid for the killing was also wrong.

Another highlight from the first day’s proceedings was the way the judges kept asking again & again. “Do you have at least one piece of evidence to link the Acharya to the murder?” In addition, the Senior Counsel for the government Sri KTS Thulsi had no answer for it.

“Conspiracy is an interpretation of law. There are other aspects..” when Thulsi started his arguments, the judges stopped him mid way “You keep repeating various other things again & again. We are asking a particular question. What is the evidence?”

Even for this Thulsi did not answer directly. Instead, he started saying, “It is seen that the Acharya had a motive to commit the murder, from the letters written by Sankara Raman”. At one point, the judges got a bit irritated and said, “We keep asking you give us an answer for a specific question. However, you keep arguing in your own way. You continue. We will keep quiet.”

Another surprise was this. The same prosecution which called the Acharya ‘an undeserving criminal’ in the High court, said in the Supreme Court that ‘The Acharya was worthy of great respect’. They did not stop at that.

“We are looking after him with great respect” said the prosecution. In addition, they said: “Sankara Raman letters must be considered mere accusations until they are proved”
“ The accused must be considered innocent till proven guilty” When prosecution said these people in the court broke into loud laughter.

Only when Judge Lahoti admonished “Why are you laughing? All of you are lawyers. When some one is arguing his case, is this way to laugh? Do you want us to close this court and conduct the proceedings in a closed court?”, did the court quieten down.

However, the counter affidavit filed by the TN government had made some very serious charges and argued vehemently that the Acharya should not be given bail. With great difficulty, I got a copy of this counter affidavit. There are very serious charges against the Acharya listed in them.

When Thulsi came forward to give explanations referring to these charges, the judges very clearly asked again “We are not going to listen to any of this. What else do you have that can link the Acharya to the murder?”

Immediately Thulsi handed over a sealed envelope saying that it has the case diary & several other files. The judges broke the seal, opened the envelope in the court, and recorded the contents.

On the next day – January 7, 2005 – when Nariman’s closing arguments were completed, the question that the judges asked, indicated that they had come forward to grant bail Chief Justice Lahoti asked Nariman “What conditions do you think, we can put?”

Nariman very astutely replied, “Several of the witnesses are employees of the Mutt. People who get their salaries from the Acharya. The senior Prosecution counsel has expressed an apprehension that if the Acharya comes out on bail, these witnesses may refuse to co-operate and give witness. Therefore if the Acharya comes out on bail, we are willing to accept the condition that he will not enter the Mutt.”

The judges noted that and said that they are reserving judgment for another day.

Based on that the Supreme court granted bail to the Sankaracharya on January 10th at 10:30 am. The conditions were that “He should not enter the Mutt. Surrender his passport. Provide two sureties stipulated by the Chenglepet Chief Judicial Magistrate.”

“There is no direct evidence linking the Sankaracharya to the instigating murder. The judgment in the Pappu Yadav case that ‘when granting bail, one should do so only if you think that he is not guilty’ is not applicable in this case.

People in public life, holding high offices may receive such slanderous letters. It is not possible to say that they could have read it all. In this particular case, the petitioner has kept quiet for three years. To say that he suddenly got angry (upset) and asked for Sankara Raman to be killed is not an acceptable argument.” These are a few points mentioned by the judges in their order.

- R. Venkatraman (Thuglak columnist)


	\| How Can I Help ? \| Site Search \| Photo Gallery \| Contact \|