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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 8:00 PM Subject: "Open to Insult" - My comments. To: email@example.com
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