பெரியார் தப்பித்துக் கொண்ட வழக்கு!

Old Judgments and  New thoughts in the present context: S. Veerabadran Chettiar vs E. V. Ramaswami Naicker  others.

http://vedaprakash.indiainteracts.in/2008/08/09/old-judgments-and-new-thoughts-in-the-present-context-s-veerabadran-chettiar-vs-e-v-ramaswami-naicker-others/

VEDAPRAKASH

vedamvedaprakash@yahoo.com

Introduction: As historians used to claim that “history repeats and history is repeated”, the violation of provisions of Acts and Rules, litigation in the Courts, judgments delivered by the learned judges etc., also repeat. Now, there has been a lot of discussion went on and going on and would be continued in the Courts about the question of historicity of Rama[1], Rama-sethu, whether temple existed[2] and so on, as Indians note. However, when the issues are analyzed, it is found that they originate from Tamizhagam / Tamilnadu. So I decided to analyse the Supreme court Judgments in the present context, as they have many important facts recorded in them while discussing the issue in the court of law. The outcome of the case might have gone in favour of appellant or respondent, but the facts remain the facts. Legally, it could be argued that India became “secular”[3] only from 03-01-1977 and the therefore, the decisions before that date could not be brought under “secular” context. But, it could not be argued that India was “non-secular”, “communal” and so on before that date.

Why old and stale Judgments? Today morning, when I was reading the judgment, I was provoked by many factors. In fact, the Judge himself calls this case- S. Veerabadran Chettiar vs E. V. Ramawami Naicker – as “becoming stale”, but I do not think legal cases can become stale when humanity continues live and progress. Interestingly, I find a lot of similarities, coincidences and other events very analogous to this case are found now with activities and proceedings going on in and around us and definitely affecting our thinking processes. Thus, the consequences and such recurring events have not been stale to us and we cannot keep quiet. I am not neither an advocate nor law-knowing person, but attempting to know, understand and learn. Therefore, if I commit any mistake or blunder, kindly excuse me. In fact, I request our elders and other learned persons to guide me and advise in this regard.

Idoltary, breaking Idols and E. V. Ramaswami Naicker: As it has been the Indian tradition to start with “Pillaiyar suzhi” or writing “bindhu” or \ to denote Vinayaka / Ganapati and moreover, “Vinayaka chaturthi” comes on September 3, 2008, I start with the judgment on ‘breaking of Vinayaka Idols”. The entire judgment as appearing in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.aspx?filename=500 is copied and pasted here, of course spending time to rearrange in the following form for brevity and comfortability of reading. The comments are offered in the footnotes, so that the reading of judgment would not be disturbed.

The Judgment: Start reading:

PETITIONER: S. VEERABADRAN CHETTIAR

Vs.

RESPONDENT:  E. V. RAMASWAMI NAICKER ” OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/08/1958

BENCH:

SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.

BENCH:

SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.

IMAM, SYED JAFFER

WANCHOO, K.N.

CITATION:          1958 AIR 1032               1959 SCR 1211

ACT: Insult to Religion-Ingredients of offence–Interpretation of statute – Duty of Court-Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), s. 295.

HEADNOTE: The words ” any object held sacred by any class of  persons” occurring in S. 295 Of the Indian Penal Code are of  general import and cannot be limited to idols in temples  or  idols carried on festival occasions. Not merely idols or sacred books, but any other object which is regarded as sacred by any class of persons, whether actually worshipped or not, fall within the description. Queen Empress v. Imam Ali, (1887) I.L.R. 10 All.  150 and Romesh Chunder Sannyal v. Hiru Mondal, (1890) I.L.R. 17 Cal. 852, considered.

Consequently, in a case where the allegation in the petition of  complaint was that one of the accused broke the idol  of God Ganesa in public and the two others actually aided and abetted    him with the intention of insulting  the religious feeling of the complainant and his community who  held     the deity in veneration and the trial Magistrate, on receipt  of the  Police  report that the alleged  occurrence  was  true, dismissed the complaint under S. 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure holding that the breaking of a mud image of Ganesa was not an offence under s. 295 of the Indian Penal Code and the Sessions judge and the High Court in revision,  agreeing with the view of the trial Court, refused to direct  further enquiry :

Held, that the courts below were clearly in error in interpreting S.  295 of the Indian Penal Code in the way they (lid,  but  since  the complaint stood long  dismissed,  no further enquiry need be directed into the matter.

Held, further, that the Courts must be circumspect in such matters and pay due regard to the religious susceptibilities of different classes of persons with different  beliefs, whether they shared those beliefs or not or  whether  those beliefs in the opinion of the Court were rational or not.

JUDGMENT:

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 1956.

Appeal by special leave from the judgment and  order dated October 13, 1954, of the Madras High Court in Criminal Revision Case No. 267 and 1954 154 (Criminal Revision Petition No. 249 of 1954) arising out of the judgment and order dated January 12, 1954, of the  Court of  the District and Sessions Judge  as  Tiruchirapalli  in Criminal Revision Petition No. 17 of 1953.

R. Ganapathy Iyer and  G. Gopalakrishnan,   for the appellant.

No one appeared for the respondents[4].

1958.  August 25.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by  SINHA J.-

The only question for determination in this  appeal by  special  leave, is whether the  petition  of  complaint, disclosed  a prima facie offence under s. 295 of the  Indian Penal  Code.  The courts below have taken the view that it did not, and on that ground, it stood summarily dismissed, before evidence pro and con had been recorded. It appears that the appellant filed a petition of complaint in the court of the Additional First-Class Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli, against the respondents, three in number. The petition of complaint alleged inter alia that the  first accused is  the leader of Dravida Kazakam (a community  of persons who profess to be religious reformers, one of  whose creeds is to carry on propaganda against idol worship[5]),  and as  such,  he was out to “vilify a certain section  of the Hindu  community and do propaganda by holding  meetings  and writing articles. “It is further alleged in the petition of complaint that “recently, the first accused announced his intention of breaking the image of God Ganesa, the God sacred to the Saiva Section of the Hindu Community[6] on 27th May, 1953, in a public meeting at Town Hall.

This caused terror – commotion in the mind of the Saivite Section of            the – Hindu Community. “The complainant claims to be a Saivite. The complainant further alleged in his petition that on May 27,  1953, at about 5-30 p.m., the accused broke an idol  of God  Ganesa  in public at the Town Hall Maidan, and  before breaking  the idol, lie made a speech, and expressly stated that he  intended  to insult the  feelings  of the Hindu community by breaking the idol of God Ganesa. The said act of breaking the idol was alleged to have been  actively abetted by instigation and aid  by the other two accused persons, who also  made  speeches. The petition of complaint also alleged that the  said  act  of breaking the image of God Ganesa was done with the intention of  insulting the religious feelings of certain sections  of  the Hindu community, who hold God Ganesa in veneration, and that the acts complained of, amounted to offences under ss. 295   and  295A of  the  Indian  Penal Code. On those allegations, the petition of complaint (dated June 5, 1953) prayed that processes might issue against the three accused persons.  In the list of witnesses appended to the petition, figured[7] the Additional District  Magistrate,  the Sub-Divisional  Magistrate,    the Town Sub-Inspector  of police, Tiruchi Fort, and Sub-Magistrate, Tiruchy Town. On the same date, the learned magistrate examined the complainant on oath[8]. The complainant made statements in support of his allegations in the petition of complaint. Thereupon, the learned magistrate directed that the petition of complaint be sent to the Circle Inspector of  police, Trichy, for inquiry  and report under s. 202, Criminal  Procedure  Code. On  June 26, 1953, on receipt of the police report which “showed that though the occurrence as alleged had taken place it was a point of law if the act of the accused would amount to  any offence “, the learned magistrate passed his  order, dismissing  the complaint  under s. 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the course of his order, the learned magistrate observed as follows:-

“The mud figure of Ganesa alleged to have been broken by accused is not an object held sacred or worshipped by any class of persons[9]. Simply because it resembled the God Ganesa held in veneration by a section it cannot become an object hold sacred[10]. Even Ganesa idol abandoned by the people as unworthy of worship loses its sanctity and it is no longer an object held sacred by anybody, since such given up  idols are found in several places of defilement[11]. It is not an offence if a person treads union any such abandoned idol[12]. Therefore the breaking of mud figure of Ganesa does not amount to an offence under Section 295, Indian Penal Code[13]. “The speeches delivered by the accused with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging religious feelings of a community, no doubt amount to an offence under Section 295-A, Indian Penal Code.  But for laying a complaint under this section, the sanction of the Government is necessary[14]. This section has been clearly mentioned in the complaint and it cannot be said it was included by oversight. Without a proper sanction an offence under this section is unsustainable[15]. I therefore see no sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint and I dismiss the same under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code[16].

“The   complainant  moved  the  learned Sessions  Judge of Tiruchirappalli, by his petition in revision, filed on July 9,  1953,  under ss. 435 and 436 of the Criminal  Procedure  Code,  for  setting  aside the order  of  dismissal  of the complaint. In the petition filed in the Court of Session, the complainant stated that the petition was confined to the complaint  in respect of the alleged offence under  s.295, Indian Penal Code, and that it did not seek to revise the order of dismissal of the complaint in respect of an offence under s 295-A of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petition by an order dated January 12, 1954, holding, in agreement with the learned magistrate, that the acts complained of did not amount to an offence under s. 295, Indian Penal Code.  In the course of his order, the learned Sessions Judge made the  following observations:-

I agree with the learned Magistrate that the acts complained of do not amount to an offenceThe accused, who profess to be religious reformers[17] in a campaign against idolatry organized a public meeting at which they broke an earthen image of the God Ganesa. The particular image broken was the private property[18] of the accused and was not in itself an object held sacred by any class of persons; nor do I think[19] that idol breaking by a non-believer[20] can reasonably be regarded by a believer as an insult  to his religion; and the ingredients of Section 295, Indian  Penal Code, are therefore not made out. “

The complainant then moved the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction under s. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter was heard by a learned single Judge of that Court. The learned single Judge also agreed with the courts below in the reasons given by them for dismissing the petition of complaint, and refused to order further inquiry[21]. In the course of his judgment, he discussed the question whether a mud image of God Ganesa, came within the scope of the words “any object held sacred by any class of  persons”  in s. 295, and he answered the question in the  negative. In this connection, he referred to the judgment of the Full Bench  of  the Allahabad High Court in the case of Queen Empress v. Imam Ali (1), which is directly an authority for this  proposition only that the word ‘object” in s. 295 of the  Indian  Penal Code, does not include  animate  objects. That case dealt with the complaint of killing a cow. Edge C.J. in the course of his judgment, made  an observation that  the  word ‘object ‘ should  be interpreted ejusdem generis with the words ‘place of worship”, and by way of  an example of such an inanimate object, he mentioned an  idol. That observation, if anything, is not against the complainant. The learned single Judge also referred to the case of Romesh Chunder Sannyal v. Hiru Mondal (2),  which also is not in point inasmuch as it dealt with the case of a dedicated  bull.   But the learned Judge seemed to draw from those cases the inference which may be stated in his own words, as follows:-

“Interpreted like that, it would mean that the section would apply only to cases where an idol in a temple[22] is sought to be destroyed, damaged, or defiled.  The words ‘any object held sacred by any class of persons” even  otherwise will  apply  only  to idols in a temple or  when  they are carried out in processions on  festival  occasions[23]. The object held sacred” will mean only the idols inside the temple and when they are taken out in processions on festival occasions. In such circumstances as in the present case the breaking is nothing more than a doll taken from the shop.

(1) (1887) I.L.R. 10 All. 150.

(2) (1890) I.L.R. 117 Cal. 852.

Though the intention of the respondents may be to decry the feelings and wound the susceptibilities of a large section of the people, still the intention alone is not sufficient unless it is carried out by an act which must   fall within the scope of this section.  The dolls in the shop, though they may resemble several of the deities in the temple, cannot        be held to be objects held sacred by any class of persons.  In modern society there are several images of the deities in the drawing rooms of several houses.  It cannot for a moment be suggested that these images are objects held sacred.      These have got to be distinguished from the objects held sacred, which can only be when they are duly installed in a temple and from which they are subsequently taken    out in  procession on  festival occasions.   What was broken therefore by  the respondents is nothing more than  a           doll taken  either from a shop or made for the occasion,  and  it cannot     by any means be called ail object held sacred. The offence   is not  made out and the dismissal  is  therefore justified.”

The petitioner moved the High Court for  the  necessary certificate  of fitness for making an appeal to this  Court. The learned Judge, who had heard the case on merits, also dealt with this application, and refused to  certify that this  was  a fit case for appeal to this  Court under Art. 134(1)(c)  of the Constitution[24]. The petitioner moved this Court and obtained the necessary special leave to appeal. It is regrettable that the respondents have remained exparte in this Court. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the courts below had unduly  restricted the meaning of the words of s. 295, particularly, the  words  ” any  object held sacred by any class of persons “, and that the  words have been used in their fullest amplitude by   the Legislature,  in order to include any object consecrated  or otherwise, which is held sacred by any class of persons, not necessarily belonging to a different religion or creed. In the  first place, whether any object is held sacred  by any class of persons, must depend upon the evidence in the case, so  also  the effect of the words ” with  the  intention  of thereby insulting the religion of any class of  persons or with the knowledge that any class of  persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement as  an insult to their religion.”

In this case,  the  facts alleged in  the  petition,  do not  appear  to  have been controverted,  but  the learned  magistrate,  as  also the learned Sessions  Judge and the learned Judge in  the High Court,have thrown out the petition of complaint solely  on the  ground  that the image of God Ganesa,  treated  by the respondents as alleged by the complainant, could not be said to  be held sacred by any class of persons.  In the instant case, the insult alleged was by destruction of the image  of God Ganesa.  Apart from the question of evidence, which had yet  to be adduced, it is a well-known fact that the  image of Lord Ganesa or any objective representation of a  similar kind,  is  held sacred by certain classes  of  Hindus, even though the image may not have been consecrated[25]. The  learned  Judge in the Court below, has given  much too restricted a meaning to the words any object held sacred  by any  class  of persons “, by holding  that  only  idols  in  temples or  idols  carried  in  processions  on   festival occasions,  are         meant to be included  within  those  words.

There are no such express words of limitation in s. 295 of the Indian Penal code, and in our opinion, the learned Judge has clearly misdirected himself in importing those words of limitation. Idols are only illustrative of those words. A sacred book, like the Bible, or the Koran, or the  Granth Saheb, is clearly within the ambit of those general  words[26]. If  the courts below were right in their  interpretation  of the  crucial  words in s. 295, the  burning or otherwise destroying  or defiling such sacred books,  will  not come within the ‘Purview of the penal statute[27].

In our opinion, placing such a restricted interpretation on the words of such general import is against all established canons of construction[28]. Any object however trivial or destitute of real value in itself, if regarded as sacred by any class of persons would come within the meaning of the penal section[29]. Nor is it absolutely necessary that the object, in order to be held sacred, should have been actually worshipped[30].  An object may be held sacred by a class of persons without being worshipped by them[31]. It is clear, therefore, that the courts below  were rather cynical in so lightly  brushing  aside  the  religious  susceptibilities of  that  class  of  persons to  which the complainant claims to belong[32]. The section has been intended to respect the religious susceptibilities of persons of different religious persuasions or creeds.   Courts  have  got  to  be very circumspect  in such matters, and to pay due regard  to the feelings  and  religious emotions of  different classes  of persons  with different  beliefs,  irrespective  of the consideration whether or not they share those beliefs,  or whether they are rational or otherwise, in the opinion  of the court[33].

As a result of” these considerations, it must be held that the courts below have erred in their interpretation of the crucial words of s. 295 of the Indian Penal Code[34].  But the question still remains whether, even after expressing our strong disagreement with the interpretation of the section by the courts below, this Court should direct a further inquiry into the complaint[35], which has stood dismissed for the last about 5), ears[36]The action complained of against the accused persons, if true, was foolish, to put it mildly, but as the case has become stale[37], we do not direct further inquiry into this complaint. If there is a recurrence of such  a foolish behaviour[38] on the part of any section of the community, we have no doubt that those charged with the duty of maintaining law and order[39], will apply the law in the sense in which we have interpreted the law.  The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Conclusion: The judgments are thus delivered against Hindus one way or the other, obviously, under political pressure and such prevailing conditions have not been legally or judicially correct in the context. One should remember and appreciate S. Veerabadran Chettiar[40], who fought with E. V. Ramaswany Naicker exhausting all available “legal remedies” from Magistrate Court to Supreme Court by setting standards to the present-day Hindus. At least, the learned advocates, lawyers and other legal experts, who represent Hindus, Hindu cause and the rights of Hindus, should apply such possible legal methods, precedence etc., to the favour of Hindus, as they have been under target by all forces.

VEDAPRAKASH

09-08-2008


[1] It is not known why only “Rama” is figuring in many Judgments and also hated by the Indian politicians, particularly, the secular, atheist and of course anti-Hindu categories.

[2] The Ramajanmabhumi issue has also been pending, but since Rama-sethu has come and perhaps, here, the Hindus could be easily beaten by all means, it is taken up just like 20-20 cricket match with all due publicity from the media.

[3] The Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976.

[4] Generally, the DK-DMK and the like cadres assert, shout on the roof-tops beating their chests that they are not afraid of Act and Rules, courts and so on. But, when such exigencies come they avoid or circumvent or try to contain with their political power or otherwise by resorting to different methods. Thus, here the respondents or “accused” appeared before the court or their representatives. The Court observed, “It is regrettable that the respondents have remained exparte in this Court.”!

[5] It cannot be true, as tried with Vinayaka idols. Of course the usual argument that since majority has been the Hindus and therefore, only Hindu religion, God, scriptures etc., would be targeted, attacked, criticized or even blasphemed cannot hold water.

[6] “Ganesha” has been favourite to all and such generalization has been misconceived and wrong also. In fact, the archaeological evidences for Ganesha-worship have been found throughout the world.

[7] This is interesting as it is intriguing to note whether the law enforcing authorities could have been biased as has been alleged, that too, when India was yet to become secular!.

[8] Ironically, the oath is taken only by asking the accused, witness etc., by placing their hand, that too, right hand (why such legal superstition?) on the book. Ironically, the book is also not respected. When the opposed-categories or politicians burn Manu Smriti, Vedas, Ramayana etc., all authorities keep quiet, as if nothing is violated. However, when even a whisper is made about extension of such act to the scriptures / books of others, all these authorities would jump. Really, this “legal secularism” is something inexplicable in India.

[9] Can anybody argue: “The so-called printed books are only printed books with ink on paper and therefore, they are not sacred”? Therefore burning of books cannot be brushed aside and the people should take immediate action.

[10] Really, it is astonishing as to how the magistrate / Judge could measure the meter of “sacredness” or “sacredness of Idol” etc.

[11] This is mischievous, as in the case, there had not been any allegation that Naicker had broken such used mud-Idols. Thus, it is evident that by such interpretation, the case was misled obviously. In fact, leading, suggesting or putting such words in the mouth of others have not been good characters of judges and advocates, as they are supposed to be impartial in the delivery of justice.

[12] This is the most dangerous thing and it could be picked up now, as the Vinayaka-worshippers tend to commit such mistakes. Of course, they need not be disheartened as now the authorities have been pressurizing to close the wells in Chennai. Moreover, the politicians directly or indirectly and also aided and abetted with land-grabbers by grabbing tanks, ponds, lakes and other inland water storage system, made the devotees to search for water sources for submersion. Though, they talk about ecology, storage of water, fight for water, war for dams etc., they cheat people in real life by doing all this nonsense.

[13] This type of assertions coming from the legal forum would only embolden the anti-elements to indulge and commit nuisance, nonsense leading to actual crimes and violations of Acts and rules. However, it is ironical that Courts to come out with such judgments.

[14] So using such escapist legal nuances, the spirit or the life of the law itself is circumvented or killed, what the poor, helpless and justice-seeking believer can do? He has been a believer in God and also Law! Can court, judge, advocate or any law-enforcing authority betray such believers?

[15] So thus, the believers were cheated in 1955.

[16] Why cannot the believers be taught about the “sufficient ground” for effective proceeding, as after all, they are only taking the mud from the ground and preparing the so-called Mud-Idol and worship. Poor Hindus, still they do not know the ground realities in legal field, thus loosing the cases!

[17] Here, definitely, the court has misinterpreted and misrepresented the “unappeared” accused before the court by branding them as “religious reformers”, as them themselves vouchsafed that they were atheists and therefore such “irreligious reformers / formers / damagers” should have been treated cautiously or legally instead of certifying or justifying their motive as “good”!

[18] Yes, anything can be possessed as “private property”, but he committed the offense publically and not in his house! Now, how nowadays, these people commit such violations inside the “Periyar thidal” and give publicity as if they did in public! Any such type of interpretation can anybody to buy any sacred book and burn and say that “I am only burning my book, as I paid and purchase it and I can do whatever I want”!

[19] Note, even such Legal expert had to “think” to “believe” like that that the accused persons had only broken earthen images, they were not sacred etc. Such a biased, prejudiced and pre-conceived mental set-up of the Judges cannot be imagined. However, the deliverers of justice had / have been so in our country raise many questions. As atheist CMs and people-elected rulers behave, can “atheist” Judges or Judges with such beliefs could deal with “religious issues” or “issues relasted to the question of faith” etc?

[20] Note how the “legal-pundit” is contradicting himself! First he argued that he was “religious reformer”, now he says “non-believer” according to his “expertise-thinking”.

[21] Note how the legal-experts tried to help the “non-believers” than “believers”. Thus, it is unfortunate to note the status of judiciary in India. The question repeats is why they have been against the “believers” – the Hindus?

[22] So only when Idols inside the temple are destroyed or defiled, it is a crime and the Idols outside temple are destroyed or defiled, it is not a crime under the Act! Wonderful, really, even Macaulay would not have thought that an Indian coolie could give such interpretation to enslave and loot Indians mentally.

[23] Of course, they were taken in a procession by the “religious reformers”, but the Judge would say but they were not carried on in “festival occasions”!

[24] Hindus have to run pillar to post to save his Idols, ideals and temples and of course honour also.

[25] Even the Idols manufactured, sold, used for puja, worship and ultimate submersion, it has been consecrated only. It is not known how the learned Judges are coming to such conclusions. Just recollect how the learned Chief Justice of supreme court, K. G. Balakrishnan was asking about the Ram-sethu: Whether it ewas worshipped, if so who went to the middle f the sea and offered puja? How the puja was offered under the sea and so on.

[26] Thus, they can be burned and the Courts cannot do anything!

[27] As explained.

[28] Here, the Judge comes to the real situation. However how the lower judicial forums could have “placed” such a restricted interpretation on the words of such general import is against all established canons of construction, is not known.

[29] Can Ram-sethu be brought under the provision? I am just trying for the possibilities.

[30] Ram-sethu satisfies all such conditions and the proven-worship has been there for thousands of years. Of course, we need not worry about the so-called, “demolition of Rama0sethu by Rama”, as even after such destruction, assuming that it is fact, the Ram-sethu is continued to be worshipped by the Hindus from Kashmir to Kanyakumari and therefore, the argument of the Government advocate is wrong.

[31] Here, none could say anything. In fact, the question of “the question of faith” cannot be asked or probed by the Court is stressed here.

[32] Really, it was unfortunate as to why the lower courts have been so cynical about the proceedings during in 1950s. This aspect has to be found out for understanding.

[33] So this is the main part of the judgment, where the Judge has pointed out the fact of the position of the sections under IPC dealt with. Thus, the Hindus can assert rights and go on register their rights. If a concerted and continued fight is carried on as one person did it in 1953, facing EVR, definitely, Hindus could win their cases.

[34] Thus, the Supreme Court held the orders passed by the lower Courts against lsaw and thus ignoring the sentiments of Hindus.

[35] Was this “personal dilemma” or “legal dilemma” of the Judge or he was ordered to do so?

[36] It must be “five years”, as Naicker did such sacrilege in 1953 and the judgment was delivered in 1958.

[37] Oh, the learned Judge could find it “stale” – decayed, sour, old, hard,…..tired, boring, oversued……………….and so on. Anyway, for us the old judgments are eye-openers to understand the just-past “legal history” and “legal-struggle” of Hindus carried on in the most decent, non-violent and elegant manner without any publicity.

[38] Note, the Judge has categorized as “foolish behavior” characteristically perhaps considering the age and other position of EVR, but such remarks had been equivalent  or amount to “hanging” him morally.

[39] Indirectly, he exposed that those charged with the duty of maintaining law and order had actually erred in their duties.

[40] I would be very much obliged if friends could provide details about S. Veerabadran Cettiar, as he had been really “valorous” enough to challenge EVR! In fact, EVR and Company only stayed away as cowards.

Advertisements

குறிச்சொற்கள்: , , , , , , , ,

3 பதில்கள் to “பெரியார் தப்பித்துக் கொண்ட வழக்கு!”

  1. Aanandan Says:

    Thanks for the nice articles which brings history to mind.

    EVR ran away from attending court without facing the Law,

  2. K. Venkatraman Says:

    Oh, kit is nice to know about that guy who has been fooling the Tamils.

    Yes, if that old-mam cheated the tamils, this old-man can also do.

    In fact, I remember, there have been criminal cases fild against this guy, has been pending in the courts, as has been declared by himself in his affidavit filed before the election commission.

    Why the cases kept pending?

  3. “இந்து என்றால் திருடன் என்று அர்த்தம்’ என்று”, என்று கருணாநிதி அவதூறு பேசிய வழக்கு – தொடர்ச் Says:

    […] [4]https://dravidianatheism.wordpress.com/2010/05/16/%E0%AE%AA%E0%AF%86%E0%AE%B0%E0%AE%BF%E0%AE%AF%E0%AE… […]

மறுமொழியொன்றை இடுங்கள்

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  மாற்று )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  மாற்று )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  மாற்று )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  மாற்று )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: