10-27-2005, 12:20 AM
Pioneer.com
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"<b>The Superintendent of Police, SIT and police inspector connected with the investigation even went to the extent of prompting 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 court said.
"Launching of prosecution against prominent persons who have held high political offices and prominent jour nalists 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," the court said.
The Court criticised the prosecuting agencies for showing "extra interest" in the case only on the ground that Sankaracharya, who has been chargesheeted in the case for allegedly entering into conspiracy to murder, is the head of the Mutt.
"It leads to an inference that the State machinery is not only interested in securing conviction of the petitioner (Seer) and other co-accused but also bringing 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 customs and traditions and thereby create a fear psychosis in the minds of the people," the court said.
The Court said the action of freezing the accounts of the Mutt demonstrated the extent to which the State machinery could go while prosecuting the Seer in the Sankararaman murder case.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--></b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"<b>The Superintendent of Police, SIT and police inspector connected with the investigation even went to the extent of prompting 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 court said.
"Launching of prosecution against prominent persons who have held high political offices and prominent jour nalists 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," the court said.
The Court criticised the prosecuting agencies for showing "extra interest" in the case only on the ground that Sankaracharya, who has been chargesheeted in the case for allegedly entering into conspiracy to murder, is the head of the Mutt.
"It leads to an inference that the State machinery is not only interested in securing conviction of the petitioner (Seer) and other co-accused but also bringing 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 customs and traditions and thereby create a fear psychosis in the minds of the people," the court said.
The Court said the action of freezing the accounts of the Mutt demonstrated the extent to which the State machinery could go while prosecuting the Seer in the Sankararaman murder case.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--></b>