Savitri Era of those who adore, Om Sri Aurobindo and The Mother.

In view of the fact that multiple anonymous comments in a thread make confusing reading and it becomes difficult to track who is telling what and to whom, only comments bearing some name/pseudonym/identity will appear in future. [TNM 011110 SEOF]

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Valuable manuscripts and archival materials were misappropriated for wrongful gain and criminal conspiracy for sedition

from PP Raghavachary <raag62@gmail.com> to ... "Tusar N. Mohapatra" <tusarnmohapatra@gmail.com> date 19 November 2008 17:15 subject My comments on AG Noorani's Opinion

It is only if the State takes objection and forfeits the book as per the provisions of the said section, the question of denial of freedom of expression arises. [...]

If a foreigner writes any objectionable, seditious and blasphemous material particularly against a great yogi of India it is the State which has to take objection on such publication in the interests of our country. Because sedition under law is a serious offence against the state i.e., the country at large. [...]

So far the state has not forfeited the publication of the objectionable book therefore the fourth objection raised by my friend does not arise. The questions in regard to fundamentals of natural justice etc do not apply at this stage. The author will be given opportunities of being heard at the stage of section 96 of Cr.P.C. because it is on his application, the concerned High Court will hear the quash proceedings by a bench of three judges as per law.

Therefore if the devotees and followers are hurt they should lodge as many complaints as possible with specific objections on the blasphemous and objectionable publication, strenthen the hands of state for their taking action under section 95 of Cr.P.C. [...]

The question of invoking section 295-A of IPC i.e., "insult the religion or religious beliefs of that class of citizens" does not arise because of Sri Aurobindo's own writings that his yoga or philosophy is beyond religion and the same was accepted by the Apex Court in SP Mittal Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1983 SC page1 (the famous Auroville Case) by a majority of judges of the constitution bench comprising 5 judges).

In stead a complaint for the offences of Criminal Breach of Trust can be lodged u/s 406 of IPC against Trustees and Peter Heehs by the followers, devotees, beneficiaries and inmates on the footing that the valuable manuscripts and archival materials entrusted to the Trustees under the Trust deed and through them to PH were misappropriated for wrongful gain and criminal conspiracy for sedition under section 124 A of IPC. [...]

From: PP Raghavachary Advocate First Floor, No. 15, Sri Aurobindo Street Pondicherry-605001 Ph: 0413-2228215 Mob: +91 9443602818. From: PP Raghavachary <raag62@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 8:00 PM Subject: "Open to Insult" - My comments. To: syndication@dnaindia.net
Dear Editor, I supplement to my comments I have already sent to you with one more point. The author Mr. A.G. Noorani has expressed his opinion when the matter is seized by the High Court and is subjudice. I was constrained to respond on the same to prevent the damage that such an opinion could possibly do. -- Regards, PPR

1 comment:

  1. Hi advocate PPR,

    Do you still call yourself some sort of a Lawyer! Which rotten Law School did you ever attend? Maybe others could file a Writ of Mandamus for directing the Central Government to close down that bogus school which could not avoid the charge of having brought out a student like you. Or maybe such an application would be dismissed as infructuous as probably that school has already been recognized as a bogus institution.
    To bring out just a few points:
    In the same breath you speak about "blasphemous" and also cite (citations are somehow your passion as also your disease) Apex Court decision in SP Mittal vs Union of India (AIR 1983 SC 1) where you claim that it was held that the writings of Sri Aurobindo are beyond religion. I have not read the Mittal case but that is what you say. Then how can you say that "blasphemous material" against a great Yogi who never founded a religion, has been published? Of course in one para you add that nothing can be filed u/s 295-A IPC and at the same time you can also describe the material published as "blasphemous"????? Is there a separate private code covering "blasphemy" which does not fall within the scope of IPC? May be there could be a section 295-A of RPC (Raghavachary Penal Code) under which the nasty offender could be charged! I know your grey matter is very limited and its use even as a dysfunction would have been very sporadic and also you are under no compulsion to be consistent but do not carry this cheap game too far as otherwise the cat (in your special case it should substituted by "rat") would be out of the bag and even your few surviving admirers would avoid seeking legal advice from you.

    Similarly, even if the Book says something willfully against Sri Aurobindo (I am still open to the idea that it does - though I am as yet not 100% sure)how would that form "seditious material" as you claim, unless it be again by virtue of some special sections of RPC? When was Sri Aurobindo the Government of India? Probably only in some revised history Books throwing new lights on Indian History! I am not yet ready to buy this line in spite of some hard selling.

    How does discussion on procedures of Cr.PC sneak into Writ Applications???!!!

    And please do not describe AG Noorani as your "friend". Mr. Noorani would surely not get too flattered to possess such bright friends!

    Anyway, as an advice from a practicing professional colleague - go and get a genuine Law degree before venturing to dabble in things beyond your very limited cerebral capacity?

    A well-wishing professional colleague.

    ReplyDelete