Author: PTI
Publication: Outlook
Date: October 4, 2005
URL: http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=326826
The Supreme Court was today taken by surprise
over the filing of chargesheet on a holiday in the Sankararaman murder case
in which the two Kanchi Sankaracharyas are facing trial.
"How the Magistrate sat on holiday. How
did he came to know that prosecution was to file a chargesheet that day,"
a Bench comprising Chief Justice R C Lahoti and Justice G P Mathur observed
during hearing of the plea of Sankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati seeking transfer
of the case outside the State.
Senior advocate Fali S Nariman, appearing
on behalf of Sankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati, pointed out that the chargesheet
was filed in a Kancheepuram court on January 10 when it was a holiday on account
of 'Eid'. He said the Magistrate sat the whole day waiting for it to be filed.
The petition had alleged that the "surcharged
atmosphere" in the state was not conducive for a fair trial.
He also questioned the conduct of police saying
that the Investigating Officer Prem Kumar, before filing the challan, went
with it to Varadarajaperumal Temple and performed puja.
However, the court said there was no objection
to the officer going to temple before filing the chargesheet but the opening
of the court and presense of Magistrate on a holiday for the chargesheet was
a worrying factor.
Nariman said the fanfare and the statements
by the police after the filing of the chargesheet were objectionable.
"The accused were not given the copy
of the chargesheet. But each and every reporter was having a copy of it and
the Investigating Officer told them that it was now between Varadaraja (god)
and Sankaracharya," he said.
Nariman said that due to various acts of Chief
Minister J Jayalalithaa, who is also the Home Minister, the atomsphere was
totally surcharged and not conducive for free and fair trial of the case.
In this context, he referred to the suo motu statement of Jayalalithaa in
the Legislative Assembly on November 17 last year in which she had stated
that investigation had established that several persons, including the Seer,
wanted to kill Sanakararaman.
The senior advocate said the atmosphere in
the state was such that not even the advocates who came to defend the accused
were spared by the state machinery. "False cases were foisted on the
advocates on the complaint of the wife of Ravi Subramaniam, the accused who
has turned approver in the case," he said.
Nariman said even the journalist who wrote
against the state action in the case had to face brunt of the prosecution
and gave example of S Gurumurthy against whom a defamation case was registered
by the state.
"All this creates an apprehension in
the mind that the whole machinery was controlled by the state and for a fair
trial the case has to be transferred outside the state," he said.
The other accused, including Junior pontiff
Vijayendra Saraswati, has filed an affidavit supporting transfer of case outside
the state.
However, senior advocate Shanti Bhushan, appearing
for Ravi Subramaniam, who has turned approver, opposed the plea saying that
the power to transfer the case has to be exercised in extraordinary circumstances
which have not arisen in this case.