Wednesday, 29 October 2014

Shocking Coincidence

Just to put on record for the benefit of those who have willingly chosen to remain blindfolded or have been gullibly hoodwinked.

The coincidence of the admitted assault on Jayashree and Hemlata’s alleged pregnancy is nothing less than shocking. Jayashree was assaulted on 09/01/2001. Trustees declared Hemlata to be 6-7 months pregnant on 10/01/2001, within 24 hours. What prevented the trustees to issue her any show-cause notice and conduct an enquiry in January 2001 itself for violating the rule of the Ashram?
  • -          Tresor Nursing Home is a personal and private nursing home of Chitra Sen on the property belonging to the Ashram.
  • -          A record of every ashramite who visits the premises is maintained and submitted to Chitra Sen who submits it to Dr. Dilip Kumar Dutta, in charge of all the medical facilities in the Ashram.
  • -          So even if I had been accused of destroying the so-called “evidence”, why did Dr. Dilip Kumar Dutta fail to produce the copy of the report which should have been submitted by Chitra Sen?
  • -          How did Dr. Dilip Kumar Dutta, being a senior doctor, miss this advance stage of Hemlata’s alleged pregnancy when she was meeting him on a daily basis for demanding justice for Jayashree’s assault?
  • -          When the trustees accused Hemlata of being 6-7 months pregnant, they did not need any medical certification required to confirm it, a profile photo would have done the trick. In her small frame of body where was she supposed to hide this advance stage of pregnancy! How come it went unnoticed even by the married women and mothers in her department at “Embroidery Department”!
  • -          When a medical document is stolen or destroyed in a nursing home, its management reports it to the police. What stopped Chitra Sen to lodge a police complaint against me and why didn’t the Ashram trustees issue me a show cause notice with regard to this incident? But this most important question still remains unanswered for obvious reasons, there was no pregnancy and therefore no destruction of medical evidence.
The fact is that the trustees were scared by the threat of the supporters of Krishna Chandra who had said that they would do a mass walkout of the Ashram Dining Room if any disciplinary action was taken against Krishna Chandra. So to suppress, confuse, mislead and misrepresent the incident of the assault on Jayashree, the trustees and their henchmen started the rumor about Hemlata’s alleged pregnancy.

Krishna Belliappa, who volunteered for causing Hemlata’s alleged pregnancy and as stated by the trustees, was never expelled from the Ashram. In fact in Menon’s enquiry (third enquiry by trustees’ count) he was examined as trustees’ witness and declared that he was not responsible for the alleged pregnancy. He not only enjoys till date all the facilities and amenities provided by the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust, he has been bestowed with power, position, money and women.

The two Krishnas were and are still being patronized by the trustees, since the trustees themselves are all aspiring to become Krishnas and being constantly entertained by the willing gopis of the Ashram. Therefore from April 2001, since we sisters revolted against this system of entertainment, the vindictive trustees have left no stone unturned to harass, victimize, falsely accuse us, defame us and overall make our lives thoroughly miserable and unlivable. What a spiritual justice!

Tuesday, 28 October 2014

Mystery of missing evidence from Tresor Nursing Home

When one stands against misdeeds in an institution, one must be extremely strong to withstand any mud-slinging. 

The trustees started slanderous attacks on us after we five sisters decided to stand together against the inhuman and brutal assault on my eldest sister Jayashree by Krishna Chandra (a non-ashramite in 2001) on 09/01/2001 in the premises of the Ashram Dining Room during her working hours and in the presence of Veda Prakash Johar (Ashram trustee and in-charge of Dining Room).
  • -          Trustees, especially Dr. Dilip Kimar Dutta, prohibited us to lodge a police complaint regarding the assault on Jayashree on 09/01/2001. We were asked to abide by the rules of the Ashram as stated in the “Prosperity Book”.
  • -          Hemlata was punished for requesting action to be taken against the assaulter Krishna Chandra. Her food, at the Ashram Dining Room counter-service, was stopped and she was only allowed to take home food through carrier-service.
  • -          Arati Das Gupta, (a teacher, a sports’ captain and Manoj Das Gupta’s sister and prime advisor) verbally informed Hemlata that her sports facilities had been stopped but did not give any reason for the same.
  • -          Hemlata and Jayashree approached Pranab Kumar Bhattacharya, the director of sports in the Ashram, for clarification and Gangaram gave them a handwritten note saying that Hemlata’s name had been removed from the ‘Prosperity List’ therefore her sports facilities had been stopped.
  • -          Breakfast was not served to the five sisters at the Ashram Dining Room on 23/03/2001 although Hemlata had been allowed to eat in the Dining Room on 22/03/2001.
  • -         Trustees publicly circulated a defamatory letter about Hemlata, without having first given her a copy of this letter marked ‘Strictly Personal and Confidential’. She received this letter only after she had filed her Civil Suit in O.S. No. 215/2001 challenging her illegal expulsion where no show-cause notice had been served to her, much less an enquiry conducted.
On the first hearing of O.S. No. 215/2001, the judge had asked trustees’ lawyer C.S.Narasimhan to produce evidence for the serious allegations made by them. This lawyer of the trustees replied that he would produce them soon. This “soon” has yet to come even after 14 years.

After Hemlata had filed her suit for defamation citing the five trustees along with their three henchmen, as accused before the criminal court, the trustees were demented with rage and went completely haywire.

My questioning the sudden visits of P.P. Raghavachary and C.S. Narasimhan to Tresor Nursing Home led to the illegal termination of my work without assigning any reasons. Later, only through court papers I learnt that I was accused of destroying the alleged evidences relating to Hemlata’s advanced stage of pregnancy. It was rather shocking. Trustees and their henchmen spread these news (Hemlata’s alleged pregnancy and my alleged destruction of “medical” evidence) like a wild forest-fire and everyone believed them in good faith because pregnancy is a frequently recurring occurrence in the Ashram.

Trustees made me a scapegoat to safeguard their interests, especially because I had seen the diary maintained by Chitra Sen recording several terminations of pregnancies of ashram related cases at Tresor Nursing Home. So easy… so very convenient!!!


As a last recourse to get justice we have written a letter to the President of India. We hope that at least the Hon'ble President will intervene and help us. Let us wait and watch.

Saturday, 25 October 2014

Madhumita Banerjee covers up trustees’ misdeeds

Madhumita Banerjee, a Punjabi woman married to a Bengali, runs an NGO called “Disha” in Pondicherry. She is a very close associate of the trustees and Matriprasad. As she is associated with various political groups in Pondicherry, trustees have always entertained her to get their work done. The trustees used her well in our case also with regard to the investigation conducted by National Women Commission.

I met her for the first time on 25.06.2006 when she visited Ambabhikshu House to canvass for her party during Pondicherry Municipal Election. 

It was a Sunday evening at about 6.45pm. She along with her friend knocked at my door asking to vote for them. Just for fun I began chitchatting with Madhumita and asked her what her party would do if it won. Her reply shocked me. She said that she has always helped ashramites and the trustees. She informed me that she was the go-between person between the trustees and the State women Commission (SCW) and the National Women Commission (NCW) in the complaint given by the five sisters.

Wow! This was a revelation to me so I goaded her further for information. I asked her what she knew about the five sisters’ case and how she had helped the trustees.

Her idea about our complaint to NCW was vague as she had only a cursory glance of the file which had been submitted by our lawyer at the Chief Secretariat, Pondicherry, to Mrs. Poornima Advani on 5/10/2004 in the morning. But promptly she had called the trustee Dr. Dilip Kumar Dutta and handed over a copy of this file to Matriprasad.

She also boasted to me that she had visited Delhi with the Chairperson of State Women Commission Mrs. Kamalini to convince the chairperson of National Women Commission Mrs. Poornima Advani that the Ashram was free from all vices. She also commented that these 5 sisters were psycho-cases.

After she had finished her story, I asked her whether I appeared to be a psycho-case. She replied “NO”. Then I showed her the original pornographic cartoons received by me. Only then she realized her faux pas and asked me who I was. When I told her that I was one of the five sisters whose name she did not even know and much less about our sexual harassment, she turned white. By then my third sister also joined me. 
Since Madhumita Bannerjee was caught red-handed, without apologizing to us she hurriedly left Ambabhikshu House with her political friend without visiting any other rooms. But on a parting note she said that men in the Ashram were bad and abusive.

After several months, Madhumita Banerjee, who had now become richer by trustees’ grace, threatened me openly with kidnap, assault and even rape. She categorically advised me to keep quiet about her dirty role. What a request!

I reported her insulting and obnoxious behavior as well as her threat to me to one of her political colleagues, who heard me out sympathetically. This colleague approached and briefed the senior politician, who in turn took Madhumita Bannerjee to task. Only then she toned down since she had been given the choice to either quit the party or continue with her behavior.

What a nightmare trustees had created for everyone!

Thursday, 23 October 2014

Blatant Miscarriage of Justice by Some Corrupt Supreme Court Judges

Together with the active help, support and willful wrong intervention of some judges of the Supreme Court of India, the trustees have legally harassed us using the backdoor entry under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Justice Sudhanshu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S.A. Bobde. A gist of their misuse of discretionary power of supervision is cited below.

We filed S.L.P. No.27620/2012 against the illegal order of eviction dated 03.08.2012 passed by Justice S. Manikumar. Our SLP was part-heard by Justice Gokhale and Justice Nijjar, who granted a stay over the High Court Order. Suddenly our SLP was preponed, under mysterious circumstances, by 1 ½ months from 15.07.2014 to 29.09.2014. 
  1. The transfer of our S.L.P. No.27620/2012 from a bench which had part-heard the case to a bench comprising of Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sudhanshu Jyoti Mukhopadhya, which had never heard the case, is totally against all legal norms, especially in view of the fact that neither party had made any written submission praying for transfer. Justice R. Gogoi and Justice S.J. Mukhopadhya should not have entertained S.L.P. No.27620/2012 under this circumstance.
  2. Justice Gogoi and Justice Mukhopadhya failed to give a fair opportunity to us to hear our case but showed open hostility to our lawyers, to the extent of even threatening our lawyers.
  3. In fact Justice S. J. Mukhopadhya had even visited Sri Aurobindo Ashram and the Grace Office of the trustees, as he himself claimed in the open court. Therefore on professional grounds he should not have heard S.L.P. No.27620/2012, much less pass perverse orders in his first ever hearing.
  4. Justice Gogoi and Justice Mukhopadhya did not give any reason to arrive at the conclusion that they came to. After threatening our lawyers, they simply passed an order under two minutes, without realizing the civil implications involved and the grievous consequences resulting in human rights violation.
  5. Justice Gogoi and Justice Mukhopadhya ought to have abstained from passing any order of this nature, especially in view of the fact that the suit in O.S. No.409/2005 has been undergoing trial since the past 4 years. They ought to have waited for the result of the trial before passing their order of illegal eviction on an interim petition granting us food, shelter, medical, clothing and other basics.
  6. Justice Gogoi and Justice Mukhopadhya violated our fundamental rights as citizens of India with regard to our food, shelter, clothing and a right to live with dignity, especially in view of the fact that as inmates of Sri Aurobindo Ashram we receive no money. They directed us to be thrown head-first into a world where we cannot survive and are more likely to be further harassed by the henchmen of the trustees, with possibility of even molestation, rape and murder.
  7. Justice R. Gogoi and Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya have passed order dated 29.04.2014 directing us to vacate “suit premises” in a case in which we have challenged the impugned report regarding sexual harassment fabricated by the trustees. The suit contains no description of suit premises, therefore their order dated 29.04.2014 is null and void and non-executable.

We filed contempt proceedings against the trustees because they stopped our  facilities of food, medical and all other basic needs, necessities and amenities. We sent this contempt petition through RPAD to Justice R. Gogoi and Justice S.L. Mukhopadhaya. These judges have also received our petition on 05.08.2014 but have failed to take it up and give us relief.

Instead on 13.09.2014 Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya visited the Ashram at Pondicherry and enjoyed trustees’ hospitality. Thereafter on 15.09.2014, just two days later, he initiated contempt proceedings in the contempt petition filed by the trustees and obliged the trustees. We sent our letter to the Registrar of the Supreme Court intimating that we have no means to appear before the court. This letter was received by the Registrar and is clearly mentioned in his office report dated 10.10.2014. The contempt petition filed by the trustees against us was posted on 13.10.2014.
  1. Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Justice S. Bobde ought not to have entertained the contempt petition filed by the trustees since the Order dated 29.04.2014 directs vacating of “suit premises” in a case which contains no description of the alleged “suit premises”.
  2. In spite of having office order dated 10.10.2014 placed before Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Justice S. Bobde, they refused to accept our plea of no means to appear, without even verifying from independent sources its truth.
  3. Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Justice S. Bobde issued bailable arrest warrant without going into the merits of the case and the executability of the Order dated 29.04.2014 passed in S.L.P. No.27620/2012.
  4. Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Justice S. Bobde have misused their powers of discretion and superintendence under Article 227 on an interim petition, while the suit is undergoing trial and directed arrest without going into the facts and ascertaining the truth.

Blatant Misuse of Powers under Article 227 by Some Corrupt Madras High Court Judges

Together with the active help, support and willful wrong intervention of two judges of the Madras High Court, the trustees have legally harassed us using the backdoor entry under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. These judges are Justice K. Venkataraman and Justice S. Manikumar. A gist of their misuse of discretionary power of supervision is cited below.
  1. Justice K. Venkataraman wrongly entertained C.R.P. No.3314/2007, filed under Article 227 by the trustees on an interim petition granting food, shelter, clothing, medical and all other basic needs and necessities of life. He passed perverse order on 29.01.2008 containing reliefs neither asked by the trustees nor by us.
  2. Justice K. Venkataraman wrongly entertained M.P. No.1/2008 in C.R.P. No.3314/2007, again filed by trustees for clarification, using for a second time Article 227. He indiscriminately exercised his powers of supervision for a second time and passed perverse order dated 04.08.2008 illegally modifying his first order dated 29.01.2008, containing reliefs neither asked by the trustees nor by us.
  3. Justice K. Venkataraman wrongly entertained M.P. No.2/2008 in C.R.P. No.3314/2007, again filed by trustees for a second clarification, for a third time, again using Article 227. He indiscriminately exercised his powers of supervision for a third time and passed perverse exparte order dated 21.06.2010 illegally modifying his first two orders dated 29.01.2008 and 04.08.2008, containing reliefs neither asked by the trustees nor by us.
  4. Justice K. Venkataraman ought to have issued notices to us either through court or directed the trustees to issue private notices to us, in view of the fact that our lawyer had given up Vakalat. He unjustly passed an order dated 21.06.2010 in our absence without giving us a just and fair opportunity to defend ourselves.
  5. Having appointed suo motto an Advocate Commissioner, Justice K. Venkataraman failed to base his order dated 21.06.2010 on the report of the Advocate Commissioner. He waited for about 1 ½ years from the date of submission of the report of the Advocate Commissioner to pass his order dated 21.06.2010. He passed exparte order after having unjustly eschewed the line contained in the report that clearly indicated the harassment and victimization caused by Ashram trustees to us.
  6. The orders passed by Justice K. Venkataraman dated 29.01.2008, 04.08.2008 and 21.06.2010, using his discretionary power of supervision under Article 227, are perverse, bad in law and were illegally modified under guise of clarification to metamorphose into an eviction proceeding which was not the prayer of the trustees in any of their petitions in the first place.
  7. Justice K. Venkataraman and Justice S. Manikumar wrongly entertained C.R.P. No.4219/2010 filed by the trustees, once again under Article 227. They blatantly misused discriminatory supervisory powers and admitted the CRP since the trustees had failed to prefer an appeal at the Pondicherry Appellate Authority and had jumped the necessary legal steps before approaching High Court.
  8. Justice K. Venkataraman and Justice S. Manikumar wrongly entertained C.R.P. No.4219/2010 filed by the trustees under Article 227, on an interim petition restoring food and shelter to us since the third party had failed to comply with the Order dated 21.06.2010.
  9. Justice S. Manikumar passed perverse order dated 03.08.2012 in C.R.P. No.4219/2010 disregarding the principles of natural justice, balance of convenience and facts and circumstances of the case. He based his order dated 03.08.2012 by further modifying the three illegal orders already passed in C.R.P. No.3314 of 2007 dated 29.01.2008, 04.08.2008 and 21.06.2010 by Justice K. Venkataraman, by colluding with him.
  10. Justice S. Manikumar passed final order after more than one year (containing two summer vacations) of hearing the final arguments. He failed to appreciate the case in C.R.P. No.4219/2010 on its own merits because the facts and circumstances and cause of action were different from those in C.R.P. No.3314/2010 and deserved impartial and independent evaluation of the case.
  11. Since trial in O.S. No.409/2005 had already begun and was underway, Justice K. Venkataraman and Justice S. Manikumar ought to have waited for the final outcome of the trial before passing orders dated 21.06.2010 and 03.08.2012. They wrongly entertained revisions on interim injunction petitions, exercised discriminate supervisory powers under Article 227 and passed outright eviction orders, a prayer neither made by the trustees nor by us, resulting in an absolutely blatant miscarriage of justice.

Tuesday, 21 October 2014

Arrest Warrant not yet Received informs Pondicherry Police

The last weekend in the “Times of India” Bosco Dominque reported that arrest warrant has been issued against we five sisters for disobeying the Supreme Court Order. He reports that and I quote

The court refused to buy the argument of the sisters that they were ready to appear before it but had no money to pay for their tickets, boarding and lodging.”

Was Bosco present in the Supreme Court or is he simply vomiting the cock-and-bull story of the trustees and indulging in one side reporting? It is also pertinent to note that the trustees are not highlighting the fact that Jayashree was assaulted, an event accepted by them in their various court pleadings. Bosco incorrectly reports the beginning of litigation only from 2002 after Mr.Menon’s enquiry was initiated and completed. But the truth is that our litigation began in 2001 because Jayashree was assaulted by Krishna Chandra (a non-ashramite) and because we protested since no relief was given to her. The trustees rewarded the assaulter as well as his sister by inducting them as inmates, whereas we have been facing 14 years of harassment, victimization, sexual harassment and various other indignities. What a great sense of justice of the trustees!

Anyhow after reading this news item, on 20/10/2014 Arunashri and I met the IGP of Pondicherry to learn about the arrest procedures. IGP Mr. Praveer Ranjan was kind enough to give us an audience. When we asked him about the arrest procedure he directed us to his secretary Mr. Rajashankar, who informed us that till date no arrest warrant has as yet been received by the police. He informed us that in the absence of the warrant it was difficult to say what is expected of the police. But he assured us that if arrest is made the procedure will be followed as per the directions issued and that no arrest will be made after 6 pm.

I reiterate the fact that we sisters have not disobeyed the Supreme Court Order dated 29.04.2014 passed in S.L.P.No.27620/2012 by Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Justice R. Gogoi and no contempt can be held against us since their order directs us to vacate ‘suit premises’ in a case where there is no suit mentioned property. How can eviction be ordered in a suit which challenges the malafide report fabricated by the trustees in order to hush up our complaints of sexual harassment? This tantamounts to further victimization of the victims especially because some of our complaints form part of W.P.No.695/2014 pending before the Chief Justice of India and also because the case is being tried for the past four years. It seems as if the Supreme Court is incapable of rendering justice to the detriment of the victims.

Let us wait and watch what the future holds for us.

Monday, 20 October 2014

Trustees Have a Bad Habit of Initiating False Contempt Proceedings

These are the contempt proceedings initiated by the trustees against the five sisters:
  1. Contempt No.718/2002 filed in O.S. No.253/2001 September 2002. No contempt was recorded against my four elder sisters. (See posting dated 24.01.2003)
  2. Contempt No.1483/2010 filed in M.P. No.2/2008 in C.R.P. No.3314/2007 dated 21.06.2010. No contempt was recorded. Justice Manikumar took exception to our use of word ‘illegal’ when mentioning about Justice Venkataraman’s order. Justice Manikumar said that how can an order passed by a court of law be illegal, knowing fully well that illegal was an appropriate description. We apologized unconditionally for our use of this word illegal vis-à-vis high court order. But no contempt was recorded against we five sisters. The trustees’ claim to the contrary can be clearly seen by a simply perusal of the order.
  3. Contempt No.395/2014 filed in S.L.P. No.27620/2012 dated 29.04.2014. Arrest warrant has been wrongly ordered by Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya on 13.10.2014 since

  • Order dated 29.04.2014 was passed by Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Justice Ranjan Gogoi without following principles of natural justice and by misusing the discretionary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution in an interim petition, especially when trial had already began in the suit for the past 4 years.
  • Order dated 29.04.2014 is non-executable. It directs the five sisters to vacate ‘suit premises’ in a case of sexual harassment where there is no description of ‘suit premises’.
  • Office order dated 10.10.2014 states that we have received a letter from five sisters where the sisters have mentioned their inability to appear since they have no means. In spite of going through our letter and office order, Justice Mukhopadhaya has failed to take our plea into account.

We have to wait and watch whether this time round the trustees will manage to get us punished for an act of contempt we did not commit !!!

Sunday, 19 October 2014

Tresor Nursing Home – Secret Refuge of Trustees’ Immorality

Tresor Nursing Home and Chitra Sen are synonymous in the Ashram community.

Ms. Chitra Sen is an old inmate, teacher & sports captain of the Ashram and heads the Advisory Committee Board of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust. She also allots work to the inmates and devotees. She also listens to their grievances without any authority to act on her own accord, in other words she is a puppet of the trustees.

Tresor Nursing Home, a unit of Swasthya Trust, is situated on a property belonging to Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust - “Tresor House”. The nursing home is her private and personal business. She has boldly voiced this her before appropriate authority.

SAAT has its own private nursing home on the beach road, dispensary, pharmacy, various therapy centers spread all over the white town and maintained by it for the well-being of its inmates, beneficiaries and devotees.

When crores of rupees has already been invested for this super-infrastructure, why is an elderly ashramite, juggling so many responsibilities, allowed to run her own private business with the blessings of the SAAT trustees, especially on an Ashram property? The answer is very simple but shocking.

Pregnancy is an accepted, normal and almost inevitable incident in the Ashram whether it’s a maid-servant, paid worker in a farmland or an ashramite. This fact is shocking but not so to the old ashramites who have witnessed pregnancies, abortions and childbirths in the Ashram. The women range maid-servant to affluent ladies.

The Mother in Her wisdom always protected women in the Ashram in every way. Stories are also told about how the Mother treated these cases. She permitted some for undergoing abortion and requested some to go for child delivery at the cost of the Ashram. Even today some of these lady-inmates are still alive and well respected in the ashram community along with their off-springs.

Unlike the era of the Mother when She guided and took the responsibility of each ashramite in Her spiritual wisdom, the present trustees (not selected by the Mother) indulge in every activity contrary to the aim and ideal of the Ashram. They are not only aware of the prevailing sexual activities, but enjoy and support the same openly.

Sexual advances are a common pass time in the Ashram and every woman has her own story. Sexual gratifications are procured to entertain VIPs, to become an Ashramite and to be in good books of the trustees. In case these so called “sadhikas” become pregnant trustees of SAAT take good care of them by providing them with appropriate medications, treatment and facilities.

This is where Tresor Nursing Home and Chitra Sen play their secret grand roles. Tresor Nursing Home takes care of all pregnancy cases of the Ashram in the name of D&C. Thus the image of these women remains clean in the Ashram community. But Chitra Sen maintains a comprehensive report about it for the benefit of the trustees of SAAT.

Tresor Nursing Home offers multifaceted approach to well-being and treatment, thus it is open to all including ashramites. Once a report of ‘services rendered’ is submitted, the Ashram dispensary reimburses Tresor Nursing Home for treatments extended its inmates.

You may wonder why I am washing dirty linen in public. Here are the astounding facts.
  1. When the assault on Jayashree took place in the Ashram Dining Room on 09/01/2001 I was working as the secretary to Chitra Sen helping her in the Ashram related work. I had raised questions and objections before Chitra Sen with regard to Jayashree’s assault. But she always maintained a hostile convenient silence. Once I had also heard her talk over phone to a psychiatrist called Dr. Unni, for Jayashree’s treatment. When I squarely challenged her she kept quiet. So I knew something was fishy.
  2. After Hemlata filed her civil suit in O.S. No.215/2001, i.e. 23/03/2001, a defamatory letter was sent to her. When she issued a legal notice to the trustees, they began scrambling for evidence. Mr. PP Raghavachary (inmate lawyer of SAAT) and Mr. C.S.Narasimhan suddenly began visiting frequently Tresor Nursing Home. When I asked them the reason for their visits they kept mum. In fact, every time they turned up I was asked to leave the premises under some pretext.
  3. On 03/04/2001 Hemlata filed her criminal complaint for defamation against the trustees and their henchmen, which they came to know about even before receipt of court-summons. The trustees were enraged at being cited as accused so they issued illegal backdated show cause notice to my three elder sisters and to me. The show cause notice indicated that we had already been found guilty, though no enquiry had been conducted, and why trustees should punish us.
  4. Thus on the 7th of April 2001, trustees decided to punish without even giving me the chance to defend myself. Chitra Sen simply asked me to stop working without assigning any reason. I was forced to hand over the office keys, which I did with a covering letter asking the reason for stopping my work. Till date that letter remains unanswered.
  5. On the same date the trustees of SAAT pulled in Tresor Nursing Home and associated it with Hemlata’s alleged pregnancy in order to hush up Jayashree’s assault on 09/01/2001. This we came to know through the Reply Notice issued answering her Legal Notice to the trustees.
A simple protest by us against the assault on Jayashree took such an ugly turn only because a few can stand firm against injustice. This hurt the ego of the male chauvinistic trustees and their henchmen. Today trustees and their henchmen (ashramites, ex-students of SAICE & trustees’ well wishers) beat the drum falsely alleging that Hemlata was in an advance stage of pregnancy of 6-7 months. She violated the so-called golden rule of the Ashram and therefore must be expelled from the Ashram. But, then why no one raised any voice against Krishna Belliappa who became an Ashramite in 2001 and who was not expelled. While Hemlata’s character is repeatedly tainted, no action is taken against Krishna Belliappa who enjoys the status of the ashramite till date.

Why did the trustees associate his name with Hemlata? The reason is so stupid that it is laughable.

In the Ashram everybody is only known by their first name. When Krishna Chandra assaulted Jayashree, trustees tried to suppress this fact since the Oriya threatened to walk out of Dining Room en mass. Since the Dining Room primarily functions on Oriya strength, this boycott would have been a big headache for the trustees. In order to confuse which Krishna was involved, Krishna Pandya being too old, sincere unaccommodating, Krishna Belliappa, the newly inducted ashramite was picked upon. Obviously he did not toe the line for free. He was elevated to the elite circle of conspirators and given full freedom to become a womanizer like his mentor Manoj Das Gupta.

This was corroborated by the fact when Jayashree, Arunashri and Hemlata went to the Police Station. A senior police officer Mr. Anand Mohan seeing them in the police station pointed at Jayashree and asked which Krishna had made her pregnant?

With regard to Krishna - Mahabharata war ensued because of one Sri Krishna. What is going to be the fate of the Ashram trustees and their well wishers when they have heavily relied upon these two Krishnas?

A Bird’s Eye-view of Suit O.S. No.409/2005

After issuing show cause notice to us, which did not mention any charges leveled against us, and without furnishing a complete copy of A.V. Nagarajan’s report dated 10.01.2005 (which also did not contain any specific charges leveled against us), the trustees began issuing and pasting expulsion letters on our doors. We were given no opportunity to defend ourselves. (See details on posting dated 07.02.2005). The dates of events which occurred thereafter are highlighted hereunder. 
  1. 25.04.2005 - O.S. No.409/2005 filed before Principal District Munsif at Pondicherry
  2. 28.04.2005 – Exparte interim injunction granting status quo is given to us in I.A. No.1500/2005 in O.S. No.409/2005 by an upright honest judicial officer, Mr. Krishnasamy.
  3. 10.06.2005 – Interim injunction is made absolute after a thorough enquiry. We sincerely thank Mr. Krishnasamy (Judge of PDM) for his unwavering rendering of justice.
  4. 01.07.2005 – Trustees disobey order of injunction and fail to provide ‘Prosperity Items’, which is given to every inmate to meet their daily and monthly needs since we do not receive any money.
  5. Contempt Petition No.3782/2005 filed by us against trustees since they disobey court order. The contempt petition is still pending. (See posting on )
  6. Trustees prefer appeal in C.M.A. No. 35/2005 at Pondicherry against the interim order dated 10.06.2005. Trustees’ Appeal is dismissed on 30.01.2007. Trial Court Order dated 10.06.2005 is upheld since the balance of convenience is in our favor.
  7. Trustees file C.R.P. No.3314/2007 before Madras High Court challenging dismissal of their appeal on 30.01.2007. Order dated 29.01.2008 is passed. Justice K. Venkataraman directs us to reside in some other accommodation. We request for accommodation at ‘Golconde Guest House’.
  8. Trustees file M.P. No.1/2008 in C.R.P. No. 3314/2007 for clarification of the order dated 29.01.2008 since they do not wish to accommodate us at ‘Golconde Guest House’. Order dated 04.08.2008 is passed and under the guise of clarification Justice K. Venkataraman modifies his own Order dated 29.01.2008. As directed we ask to be accommodated at ‘International Guest House’ and the ‘Sea Side Guest House’. (See posting on )
  9. Trustees file M.P. No.2/2008 in C.R.P. 3314/2007, a second clarification petition, seeking to further modify the already modified order dated 04.08.2008.
  10. Justice K. Venkataraman suo motto appoints an Advocate Commissioner. He directs the trustees and the sisters to state alternate accommodation which he will come and inspect and impartially judge the suitability of the accommodation. Advocate Commissioner comes to Pondicherry, visits the mentioned accommodations and submits his report on 23.12.2008 to the Madras High Court. His report is totally unfavorable to the trustees and completely exposes the harassment which the trustees are causing us. (See posting on )
  11. The trustees are in a dilemma because of the Advocate Commissioner’s report and pressurize Justice K. Venkataraman to ignore the same. Justice K. Venkataraman has already been so thoroughly comprise that he blindly obeys the trustees. We write a letter to the Chief Justice of Madras High Court – Mr. Justice Gokhale and seek to transfer our case. (See posting on 14.10.2014)
  12. Justice Gokhale ignores our complaint and orders Jusice K. Venkataraman to continue with the case. By now Justice K. Venkatarman has become openly hostile and begins to needlessly insult and berate our lawyer. With a heavy heart we request our lawyer to give up Vakalatnama. We were assured that notice will reach us through court and we can come and represent our case ourselves. No such thing happened.
  13. On 21.06.2010, 1 ½ years after Advocate Commissioner has submitted his report, Justice Venkataraman passes exparte order in M.P.No.2/2008 in C.R.P. No.3314/2007 directing us to stay at ‘Jenny Working Women’s Hostel’. As per report of Advocate Commissioner this hostel has no vacancy.
  14. On 22.07.2010 using Pondicherry police to intimidate us, Matriprasad, Maya Khandelwal, Jahnavi Ravikanti, Purushottam Kothari and others assault Jayashree and Hemlata and deny us food at Ashram Dining Room. (see posting dated )
  15. On 27.10.2010, more than three months later our food is restored at through I.A. No.2094/2010 in O.S. No.409/2005, through the Pondicherry court by Mrs. R. Vasanthi, Hon'ble Judge of PDM. We wish to thank yet another upright judge who did not succumb to pressures from her superiors and trustees.
  16. Trustees file revision in C.R.P. No. 4219/2010 challenging order dated 27.10.2010 in I.A. No.2094/2010 in O.S. No.409/2005, as well as Contempt Petition No.1483/2010, in Madras High Court. Justice K. Venkatarman is again presiding over these matters. With great difficulty our lawyers manage to transfer the case to the court of Justice S. Manikumar. Matter is extensively argued on both sides in April 2011. Then on 03.08.2012, more than 1 year later, Justice Manikumar passes order of eviction without stating any reason for the same.
  17. The five sisters challenge this unjust order dated 03.08.2012 and file S.L.P. No. 27620/2012. Stay is granted by Justice Nijjar and Justice Gokhale.
  18. Thereafter from 15.07.2014 the matter is suddenly preponed by 1 ½ months to 29.04.2014 when it comes up before a new bench and a non-executable order is passed on 29.04.2014 by Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Justice Ranjan Gogoi. (see postings dated )
  19. The trustees file Contempt Petition No.395/2014 and arrest warrant has been issued on 13.10.2014 by Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Justice Bobde.

The trial in O.S. No.409/2005 has been underway for more about 4 years. Trustees are delaying and protracting the proceedings of the trial and till have been fined on two occasion for failing to continue with the trial. They paid fine of Rs.2,000/- each time.

It is most pertinent to note here that our case contains no description of any property. It is a case challenging the impugned report which had been fabricated to hush up, suppress, mislead, misguide and misrepresent our complaints of sexual harassment. Neither the we nor the trustees ever sought relief of eviction in any of the above-mentioned multiple proceedings. But astoundingly eviction has been ordered in a sexual harassment case and victims are further victimized by the above-mentioned judges of the Madras High Court and Supreme Court. Has justice now become blind and corrupt and willfully chooses to remain blindfolded?

Justice K. Venkataraman, Justice S. Manikumar, Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Bobde have all misused their discretionary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. In spite of having written countless letters, unfortunately no one has as yet had the courage to take action against these judges and make them answerable for the gross miscarriage of justice.

Entry of National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi,

Knowing the trustees' vindictive track record and to safeguard our interests Arunashri, Nivedita and myself, went to Delhi.

In the first week of April 2005 we met Dr. Girija Vyas-ji, the then NCW Chairperson and Mrs. Nirmala Sitharaman-ji, the then South Zone Head of NCW. We asked whether any report of enquiry had been submitted by SWC to NCW, as alleged in ‘The Hindu’ on 19.01.2005. We also informed them that no such copy had been furnished to us, in spite of our request, by SWC and if we could be provided with a copy of this alleged enquiry report. Even though the office was searched, no report to this effect was found. So, we requested Dr. Girija Vyas-ji to reopen our case and help us. She assured us help but said no relief could be given immediately without going through the case records.

Desperate for immediate relief we approached the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, (NHRC). After hearing us patiently Dr. Justice Shivaraj Patil-ji, (retd.) then a member of the commission, expressed unhappiness at our plight and harassment, especially since the same was being caused at Sri Aurobindo Ashram, Pondicherry. He had been a former Justice at Madras High Court and had great regard for Ashram. He directed us to give a written complaint, which we did on the same day of our meeting.

Thereafter we returned to Pondicherry and were caught up in the fresh case O.S. No.409/2005 filed for preventing the trustees from illegally expelling us from Ashram based on the impugned report of A.V. Nagarajan. After hearing our case on 28.04.2004 Mr. N. Krishnasamy, (Hon’ble Judge of PDM, Pondicherry) granted us exparte injunction on merits. Thereafter on 10.06.2005 this injunction was made final after conducting a thorough enquiry on both sides. (See posting dated 07.02.2005)

In May 2005 Arunashri received intimation of an enquiry being conducted by IGP, Pondicherry, on behalf of NHRC. A big drama ensued since without conducting any enquiry IGP Mr. Meena, had already sent his report, based on the media clipping of 19.01.2005 and the alleged acquittal of the accused in S.T.R. No.7919/2004 (based on F.I.R. No.213/2004 filed for our sexual harassment). (See posting dated 19.09.2004, 14.10.2004, 09.05.2005 and 18.10.2014 about corrupt police).

Pretending to correct their illegal act, Mr. Meena, (then IGP) constituted an enquiry by appointing one N.T. Sivadasan, as the enquiry officer, who also conducted no proper enquiry. However his alleged report never reached us nor was ever forwarded to NHRC. The trustees fabricated this report in 2008 with the help of N.T.Sivadasan for filing the same in their C.R.P. No.3314/2007. The trustees also circulated this report as report of NHRC to thwart our claims of sexual harassment and project us in bad light. (See posting dated 15.07.2008).

NHRC has closed our case and issued orders dated 07.11.2005 and 24.03.2006, stating that since NCW was investigating the matter, no interference was needed. On receipt of N.T.Sivadasan’s report we filed application under RTI for a copy of it from NHRC. There is no mention of N.T.Sivadasan’s report in their communication.

Our RTI application and the answer from NHRC are produced below.

Saturday, 18 October 2014

Some Corrupt Officers of Pondicherry Police cause Blatant Miscarriage of Justice

Many Officers of the Pondicherry police have been active helpers of the Ashram trustees. To name a few – Mr. J.P. Singh (IPG), Mr. Ananda Mohan (senior officer), Mr. Firoz Zia Hussain (SP North), Mr. Meena (IGP), Mr. N.T.Sivadasan (SP North), Mrs. Thamizharasi (SP), Mr. Srikant (SSP – Law & Order), Mrs. Chhaya Sharma (SSP – C&I), Mr. Varadarajan (SHO – Muthialpet)

But there have also been some upright impartial Police Officers – Mr. Krishnaiah (IGP), Mr. Chandran (SSP – Law & Order), Mr. Baskarane (senior officer)

I am citing instances where we sisters have been denied justice by Pondicherry Police.
  1. On 23.03.2001 Hemlata gave a complaint of manhandling and assault but is issued with a Report in Non-Cognizable Offence on 24.03.2001, directing her to seek civil reliefs. (See posting dated 24.03.2001)
  2. The complaint dated 05.08.2004 by Arunashri is never taken up. We sent this complaint by RPAD expecting police to play foul. They lived up to our expectations. The police deny having received this complaint but we have postal registration slip and A/D card to prove our point.
  3. On 17.09.2004 police dictates complaint to register FIR. Most of Arunashri’s statement is overlooked but at least FIR No.213/2004 is registered. (see posting dated 19.09.2004)
  4. On 13.10.2004 police issues summons to Arunashri for production of pornographic chits in FIR 213/2004. But since on the same day they have already received three fresh chits from our rooms at Ambabhikshu House, they don’t take the five original chits which are available with us. We still have them. (See posting dated 14.10.2004)
  5. In spite of our repeated visits to Muthialpet police station, where FIR 213/2004 had been registered,  we were not kept informed about the proceedings of the criminal case in S.T.R. No.7919/2004 which was filed based on FIR No.213/2004 before Judicial Magistrate II at Pondicherry. We were never called to the court to give evidence. We were given no opportunity to cross-examine the accused. We came to know about the acquittal of accused first through NHRC’s Order dated 07.11.2005 but no order of acquittal has till date been furnished to us by the Pondicherry police. The only copy which we have received is through the trustees on 04.06.2007 when they filed the said Order of Acquittal in their typeset of documents in C.R.P. No.3314/2007.
  6. We were denied food on 22.07.2010 by the trustees using the illegal intimidation of Pondicherry police. Even though Mr. Chandra Mohan (Chief Secretary in 2010) regretted the mistake of the police, they did not help us to restore it by appropriate directions to the trustees.
Produced below is the Order of Acquittal in S.T.R. No.7919/2004 furnished by the trustees to us. The Pondicherry Police buried this Order to harass us and help the trustees. Till date the police has not had the courtesy to give us a copy of this report.

Will Mr. Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya Regret His Support?

Persons with the description pointing to Matriprasad, Nirmal Swain and Devdip Ganguly, were seen coming out of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya’s chamber on 13.10.2014 before the court-sitting.  If it is true why did such a meeting take place?

On 16.10.2014 Nirmal was spotted in the Supreme Court premises. Are there more pending cases relating to the Ashram other than (1) writ filed by Dr. Gayatri Sathapathy, (2) writ filed by Ramanathan and others, and (3) contempt filed against the five inmate-sisters?

Why is Nirmal Swain, accompanied by the two others, definitely Matriprasad, still hanging in and around Supreme Court? What mischief are they up to now? Are they trying to revoke the ban imposed by the Government on the denigrating book “The Lives of Sri Aurobindo” to continue their open support of Peter Heehs and rename ‘Sri Aurobindo Ashram’ as ‘Sri Sri Sri Peter Heehs Aphrodisiac Resort’? Or are there more little known cases against the trustees of Ashram challenging their ever-increasing mismanagement?

As it is, contrary to the claim of the Ashram trustees, a huge number of cases are currently pending before various High Court across the country and before the Supreme Court. And apparently the trustees prefer if the number of cases is on the rise because only then can they truly enjoy their favorite pastime – ‘inmate baiting’. Unfortunately the Ashram trustees forget that they represent and head a spiritual institution and behave worse than normal power-hungry men. Since these trustees take refuge behind the sacred names of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother ultimately we poor inmates face the brunt of it.

It is high time that at least proper rules and regulation for the administration of the Ashram be prepared and proper bye-laws incorporated in the Trust Deed and in the meantime the present unethical trustees be suspended as hastily as possible to curb and stop useless expenditures in frivolous cases.

Thank You Dr. Girija Vyas-ji

We wish to gratefully thank the following stalwarts for helping us and giving us some relief at least. How these people in authority helped us in spite of adverse pressure is truly noteworthy. 
  1. Dr. Girija Vyas, (ex-Chairperson of NCW, New Delhi and presently MP)
  2. Mrs. Nirmala Sitharaman (present Cabinet Minister)
  3. Mrs. Devi Matthews (ex-Director of DWCD, Pondicherry)
  4. Mrs. Meena (ex- Deputy Director of DWCD, Pondicherry)
  5. Mr. T.M. Balakrishnan, I.A.S. (ex-Secretary (Welfare), Pondicherry)
  6. Mr. Vasanthakumar, I.A.S. (ex Sub-Divisional Magistrate cum Deputy Collector at Pondicherry)
  7. Mr. Vijaykumar Bidhuri, I.A.S. (ex Sub-Divisional Magistrate cum Deputy Collector at Pondicherry)
  8. Mr. Ashokan (Assisting Mr. Vasanthakumar and Mr. V. Bidhuri)

Since May 2004 all the five sisters, one after another, began facing degrading, humiliating and traumatic sexual harassment at the hands of trustees' henchmen. Our sexual harassment was masterminded by Nirmal Swain, an inmate-lawyer who got his law degree through dubious means having completed a 3 years course of law in 6 years. He was the gang-leader of the group comprising mainly of his father Bhagawan Das Swain, Krishna Chandra (who assaulted Jayashree), Girish Panda, Santosh Nayak, Shakar @ Sajjal Mitra, Chandramani Patel (who tried to molest Arunashri), Jagabandhu Rout (who I am now told was instrumental in drawing the pornographic cartoons sent to us) and the girl-friends of all these men.

Arunashri and Jayashree gave complaints to Mr. Bhaktavachalam and Mr. Udaybhaskar, (President and Secretary of Bar Association at Pondicherry and both of whom were then representing the Ashram Trustees in Hemlata's criminal case). Our complaints and requests to stop the sexual harassment, though these lawyers, fell on the deaf and sadistic trustees.

We sisters were constrained to meet personally the trustees during their Trust Board meeting on 26.07.2004 and voice our complaint. The trustees openly sided with these men and literally called us names. Their stance exposed their collusion to the sexual harassment faced by us. (See posting dated 26.07.2004)

However on 03.08.2004 when Chandramani Patel tried to molest Arunashri, we got really scared and started giving out written complaints to various authorities who could help us.
  1. On 04.08.2004 complaint to Manoj Das Gupta, Managing Trustee of Ashram
  2. On 05.08.2004 complaint to Pondicherry Police
  3. On 06.08.2004 complaint to National Commission for Women

The then NCW Chairperson Mrs. Poornima Advani, hands over our case to the then newly appointed Chairperson Mrs. S. Kamalini of SWC. We were relieved that at last we are going to get justice only to be thoroughly disillusioned. Without conducting any enquiry, on 19.01.2005, Mrs. Advani and Mrs. Kamalini gave statements to the effect that a report had been given by SCW to NCW finding our complaints of sexual harassment to be false. But they also gave a most revealing direction through the newspapers that men and women in the Ashram should be segregated. (See postings dated 06.10.2004 and 20.01.2005).

In spite of our written request no copy of the alleged report was furnished to us by Mrs. Kamalini (SWC). By then through the devious manipulations of the trustees, an impugned report had been created by them through the most appropriately initiated and conducted enquiry proceedings. Based on this impugned report trustees were trying to expel the five sisters. We were constrained to approach NCW and NHRC (National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi) in the first week of April 2005.

Luckily for us Dr. Girija Vyas had replaced Mrs. Poornima Advani. We met Dr. Girija Vyas (M.P.) and Mrs. Nirmala Sitharaman (present cabinet minister) both of whom were genuinely concerned for our welfare. In spite of their thorough search they were unable to unearth the report as reported on 19.01.2005 by Mrs. Poornima Advani and Mrs. Kamalini. So Dr. Girija Vyas reopened our case through the Department of Women and Child Development, Pondicherry (DWCD). This enquiry is still pending with the Pondicherry Government. (See postings dated 19.03.2007, 06.08.2008)

Because of Dr. Girija Vyas, at the first instance, later with the help and concern of all the above-named persons, we have managed to sustain our dignity to a very great extent. All of us thank these upright persons once again for all the help that they have extended towards our welfare.

Friday, 17 October 2014


The untold inside story of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram, Pondicherry. This was a sting operation organised by the team CNN-IBN in 2007-2008. This video was supposed to be aired on 15.03.2008 at 9.00 p.m. prime-time. Till 5.00 p.m. on the 15 March 2008, the promos of this video titled 'The Divine Trap' were aired. Thereafter mysteriously the promos as well as the whole coverage vanished without being aired.

Trustees put a lot of pressure to have it stopped. It is rumored that money in crores was involved. The entire production team resigned in protest. I managed to get hold of a copy of this coverage which I am sharing now with all interested.

THEFT in Sri Aurobindo Ashram?

It is rumored that there has been a huge theft from Sri Aurobindo Ashram to the tune of 8 Crores. Why have the trustees not given a complaint to the police? Or is it that this huge sum has been spent by the trustees while extending hospitality and for the entertainment of three high profile judges who visited the Ashram Trustees 
  1. Chief Justice of India, Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha, visited on 16.08.2014
  2. Supreme Court Judge, Mr. Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya, visited on 13.09.2014
  3. Chief Justice of Madras High Court, Mr. Justice S.K. Kaul, visited on 03.10.2014
Probably that is why Mr. Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya is supporting them so blatantly at the cost of his own personal reputation.

Most Glaring Bloopers of Menon’s Enquiry

Immediately after Mr. Menon packed up from Pondicherry after completing the enquiry, Matriprasad pitched his tent at Madras. The impugned undated report submitted by Mr. Menon reeks of Matriprasad’s way of thinking and style of logic. It is rumored that Mr. Menon was paid Rs.75 Lakhs apart from other huge perks. I think we can safely take this figure with a pinch of salt in the northern direction. 
  1. No explicit charges were framed against me and I was given no chance to refute the same.
  2. No evidence of my misconduct was produced, it was all hearsay.
  3. Trustees’ witnesses were given 3 ½ days for being examined and cross-examined. I was given mere three hours.
  4. Witnesses produced before Mr. Menon were different from the witnesses produced before Mr. Natarajan.
  5. The common witnesses’ statement was different in each enquiry.
  6. Krishna Belliappa, newly inducted inmate, with whom I was supposed to have carried on with and become pregnant, denied outright his role. (implying I had immaculate conception with Manoj Das Gupta as the father since Manoj Das Gupta is self-proclaimed incarnation of the Divine??!!!!)
  7. Krishna Belliappa, in spite of being accused of the same misconduct, was examined by the trustees’ as their witness. (implying clear collusion.)
  8. Statements of trustees’ witnesses were contradictory.
  9. Alleged medical and other relevant records pertaining to my alleged pregnancy were available at Tresor Nursing Home, claimed Chitra Sen. But she deliberately failed to produce them since there were no records to produce.
  10. Statements of my witnesses and myself were not correctly recorded even though we protested. Mr. Menon deliberately omitted to record our statements which were detrimental to the trustees’ interest. He almost threatened us to that effect saying that if we did not stop protesting he would not record any of our statements.
  11. Dr. Prabhavathy, who alleged to have examined me when I was 6-7 months pregnant, gave a contradictory statement to the statement of the nurse who is supposed to have also examined me with her.
  12. Dr. Prabhavathy is Prabhakar Runpanagunta’s @ Batti’s sister. She gave statement on behalf of the trustees on condition that Batti be made a trustee of Ashram.
  13. The medical records produced by the trustees comprised on a medicine disbursement list of Ashram Dispensary. Through this list the trustees tried to prove my alleged pregnancy by the medicines I had received. Now interestingly this list contained names of men (old and young), women (old and young) and children all of who had also received each and every one of the medicine that I had been given. I was declared to be pregnant through this register, but all the other child-bearing-aged women inmates and probable male inmates, were left scott free. This indeed is a miraculous diagnosis of medical feat being achieved by a truly spiritualized Dr. Dilip Datta!
  14. Lastly I was found to be 6 to 7 months pregnant by trustees’ witnesses as on 10.01.2001. Now Mr. Menon comes to the conclusion, based on the non-evidence produced before him, that I became pregnant towards the end of the year 2000 (implying November/December 2000). But by 10.01.2001, the date on which Dr. Prabhavathy had alleged to have examined me at Tresor Nursing Home, I was 6 to 7 months pregnant.

 A very interesting fact to note at this point is the date on which Dr. Prabhavathy claims to have examined me – 10.01.2001. On 09.01.2001, just a day before my eldest sister Jayashree is brutally assaulted. After Dr. Prabhavathy’s statement her brother Prabhakar Rupanagunta @ Batti becomes Ashram trustee. Do you really feel the dates are a coincidence???!!!

The First Phase of Litigation

The first phase of litigation between the trustees and we five sisters began on and from 23.03.2001. The circumstances and cause of action for all multifaceted arose from the point where Jayashree was brutally assaulted in the presence of one of the trustees of Ashram, one Veda Prakash Johar, who did nothing to stop the inhuman assault. Thereafter the trustees tried their best to suppress the incident of assault. But because of our persistent demand for justice, we were all targeted one by one.

On 21.03.2001 Hemlata was issued a chit saying that her name had been removed from ‘Prosperity List’ of the Ashram. Prosperity List is a list of all the inmates who are being taken care of in every way by the Ashram and are completely dependent on the Ashram for their survival. Based on this chit Hemlata filed a civil suit for permanent injunction on 23.03.2001 in the morning in O.S. No.215/2001 before the Hon’ble I Additional Munsif at Pondicherry. (See postings of 09.01.2001, 30.03.2001 and 13.09.2002)

As a way to shush me for repeatedly demanding and later threatening to go to the police to lodge a complaint for Jayashree’s assault, the trustees punished me by allowing me to take food only through carrier service. I complied for about three weeks then realizing that we were being needlessly targeted, I wrote to the concerned trustees that I was going to resume taking my food at the Ashram Dining Room. On 22/3/2001 I was allowed to take food from the Dining Room counter. But on 23.03.2001 when with my four elder sisters I went for breakfast none of us were given food. (See posting of 24.03.2001).

After I filed O.S. No.215/2001 I was charged with false allegation of misconduct. After issuing appropriate legal notice for defamation I filed a criminal case defamation in S.T.R. No.864/2001 on 03.04.2001 before the Judicial Magistrate I of Pondicherry where the then trustees and their three henchmen were accused of defaming me and spreading lies about me. (See postings of 15.05.2001, 06.11.2001 and 24.11.2004). The accused were acquitted because the judge had been compromised. I have preferred a criminal appeal in Cr.A. No.477/2005 challenging the unjust acquittal and it is pending disposal before the Hon’ble Madras High Court. But till date this case remains the only one where all the trustees appeared in person as accused and faced the Judge and because of this indigestible humiliation the trustees have never forgiven my family and me.

The trustees came to know about this criminal case even before the notice reached them. They were furious and targeted my four elder sisters also. My sisters were issued with an illegal show cause notice backdated to 02.04.2001. This show cause notice already contained the punishment even without going into the veracity of the allegations made against them. My sisters were falsely accused of ‘misbehavior and defiance’. On 09.04.2001 they filed O.S. No.253/2001 challenging the malafide show cause notice issued to them before the Hon’ble I Additional District Munsif at Pondicherry. For ten long years needlessly the battled raged on in this case. (See postings on 15.04.2001 and 09.04.2010)

Since the trustees misrepresented before the Hon’ble Madras High Court, my suit in O.S. No.215/2001 was summarily terminated and Mr. Menon was appointed as the third enquiry officer to conduct an enquiry into the allegations of misconduct leveled against me. He submitted to my lawyer at Madras/ Chennai a perverse undated report and before the trustees could take action based on Mr. Menon’s impugned report I challenged the same on 14.11.2002 by filing O.S. No.668/2002 before the Hon’ble I Additional District Munsif at Pondicherry. (See postings dated 14.11.2002, 03.12.2002, 01.03.2003 and 23.09.2008). The trial has been underway for the past four years and it could have been finished had the trustees not delayed and protracted the proceedings, which they are still doing. The trustees have had to pay fine two times of Rs.2,000/- for failing to conduct the trial of the case.

The easiest way to discredit and humiliate a lady is by casting aspersion on her character, conduct and behavior. This is how all the five sisters were subjected to gross humiliation. As we kept challenging the unjust actions of the trustees the first phase of the litigation unfolded.

Thursday, 16 October 2014

Justice - Blind or Blindfolded?

At last yesterday the Order passed by Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya has been put up on the Supreme Court website. The Order goes thus

In spite of service of notice respondents have not filed affidavit nor appeared in the Court. In the circumstances, we issue bailable warrant against alleged contemnor…”

The beginning of the Order indicates

(With office report)

Now if you remember the Office Order mentioned that they have received our letter wherein we have expressed our inability to appear since we have no means and that our plight ought to be considered. (For details see posting of 14.10.2014)

Now isn’t it surprising that even when this letter has been put up before Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Justice S.A. Bobde (a fresh Judge), they fail to pay attention to it and mention that we have failed to appear and hence to issue bailable warrant. I can understand Justice Mukhopadhaya’s stance but what happened to Justice Bobde? Or is Justice Bobde too scared to stand up for the truth and correct the wrongdoing of his senior? 

I am speechlessly stupefied at the blatant injustice and miscarriage of justice happening at the Supreme Court. Has justice become blind or blindfolded to cater to selfish interests?

Also pertinent to point out is when we have no resources to pay for appearing before the Supreme Court, how are we supposed to pay for the bailable warrant? Can someone, any person in authority please tell me how we are supposed to achieve this feat? And what happens when we fail to pay the bail after we are arrested? Do we rot in jail or are we supposed to be die of hunger-strike which we shall take recourse to if we are detained?

It seems the arrest warrant has not yet reached the SP of Pondicherry. We have to take one step at a time and see what unfolds and how it unfolds. The Order directing for our arrest is produced below.

The Root Cause and Synopsis of Fourteen Years of Litigation

Jayashree’s brutal assault on 09.01.2001 and our persistent demand for justice from the trustees resulted in 14 years of litigation starting from 23.03.2001 till date. It is interesting to note the manner in which Krishna Chandra, who had assaulted Jayashree, and even his sister were greatly rewarded by the trustees. After undergoing a short probation period they were made ashramites and presently enjoy all the facilities and amenities of the Ashram but we are being denied the same. This is spiritual justice so claim the unspiritual power-hungry trustees.

From 09.01.2001 for more than two months we were persistent in our demand for justice for Jayashree and patiently waited for the trustees to take action to that effect. Instead we came to know that the trustees were busy trying to suppress the assault on Jayashree by creating false circumstantial evidence in order to declare her to be a mental case. Hemlata threatened to go to the police and lodge a complaint on her sister’s behalf. Thus began a series of court cases. 
  1. O.S. No.215/2001 (I Additional District Munsif at Pondicherry) – Hemlata vs. SAAT and its trustees – challenging the attempted illegal expulsion by the trustees. Suit is summarily terminated by the Madras High Court on 13.09.2002.
  2. O.S. No.253/2001 (I Additional District Munsif at Pondicherry) – Jayashree, Arunashri, Rajyashri, Nivedita Vs. SAAT and its trustees – challenging the illegal show cause notice dated 02.04.2001. Suit is dismissed on 09.03.2007.
  3. S.T.R. No.864/2001 (Judicial Magistrate I at Pondicherry) – Hemlata vs. Harikant Patel, Veda Prakash Johar, Manoj Das Gupta, Dilip Datta, Albert Paterl, Krishna Belliappa, Manjunath, Satyanarayanamurthy, - filed for defamation against the above-named accused persons. Magistrate visited Sri Aurobindo Ashram with Matriprasad and enjoyed the hospitality of the trustees. He was totally comprised and he wrongly acquitted the accused on 23.11.2004
  4. C.R.P. No. 2230/2001 & No. 2534/2001 in O.S.No.253/2001 (Madras High Court) – two revisions filed by sisters and the trustees against each other challenging different portions of the order passed in I.A. No.935/2001 in O.S. No.253/2001. Common order was passed on 29.10.2001 disposing off both the CRPs.
  5. C.R.P. No.787/2002 (Madras High Court) – SAAT and its trustees vs. Hemlata – trustees challenge the order passed in I.A. No. 2672/2001 in O.S. No.215/2001. Since the trustees had claimed that prior to expelling Hemlata they had conducted an “in camera enquiry”, the Hon’ble Trial Court had not permitted the trustees to constitute a second enquiry against her by appointing Suresh Chandra De as enquiry officer. So they filed this CRP under Article 227 of the Constitution. Order passed on 13.09.2002 terminating O.S. No.215/2001 because trustees give undertaking of restoring all facilities as inmate to Hemlata. Mr. Menon is appointed as the enquiry officer by the High Court of Madras. He is the third enquiry officer in a third enquiry-proceedings for the same alleged offence of misconduct.
  6. Contempt No.718/2002 (Madras High Court) - SAAT and its trustees vs. 4 sisters - trustees file a contempt proceedings against five sisters. They have appointed Suresh Chandra De (IPS) as enquiry officer. We challenge his appointment enquiry at Pondicherry. Orders passed on 24.01.2003 stating no contempt of court committed by sisters.
  7. O.S. No.668/2002 (I Additional District Munsif at Pondicherry) – Hemlata vs. SAAT and its trustees – challenging the impugned report of Mr. Menon, the third enquiry officer. Trial underway for 4 years. Trustees have paid two times fine of Rs.2,000/- each for failing to conduct the trial.
  8. F.I.R. No.213/2004 resulting in S.T.R. No.7919/2004 (Judicial Magistrate II at Pondicherry) – Pondicherry police (on behalf of Arunashri) vs. Girish Panda and others. The FIR was registered for the sexual harassment and attempt to molestation faced by Arunashri. We were never called to give evidence in the case. Accused were acquitted without a trial. No order copy was furnished to us by the police or from the JM II court.
  9. O.S. No.409/2005 (Principal District Munsif at Pondicherry) – five sisters vs. SAAT and its trustees – challenging the impugned report of Mr. A.V. Nagarajan. This enquiry was constituted wrongly and with a malafide intention to thwart, suppress and frustrate our efforts to get justice for the sexual harassment faced by us. Trial underway for 4 years. Trustees have paid two times fine of Rs.2,000/- each for failing to conduct the trial.
  10. C.M.A. No.7/2005 (Principal Sub Judge at Pondicherry) – SAAT and its trustees vs. Hemlata – trustees challenge the order passed in interim petition in I.A. No.2937/2002 in O.S. No.668/2002 granting Hemlata status quo as an inmate of Ashram and which restrains the trustees from denying, depriving and stopping all the facilities as provided to every inmate. Trustees' appeal dismissed on 30.01.2007.
  11. C.M.A. No.35/2005 (Principal Sub Judge at Pondicherry) – SAAT and its trustees vs. five sisters – trustees challenge the order passed in interim petition in I.A. No.1500/2005 in O.S. No.409/2005 granting all five sisters status quo as inmates of Ashram and restrains the trustees from denying, depriving and stopping all the facilities as provided to every inmate.Trustees' appeal dismissed on 30.01.2007
  12. Cr.Appeal No.477/2005 (Madras High Court) – Hemlata vs. Veda Prakash Johar, Manoj Das Gupta, Dilip Datta, Albert Paterl, Krishna Belliappa, Manjunath, Satyanarayanamurthy – challenging the order of acquittal passed in S.T.R. No.864/2001 by JM I, Pondicherry. Criminal Appeal is still pending.
  13. A.S. No.24/2007 (Principal Sub Judge at Pondicherry) - four sisters Vs. SAAT and its trustees - sisters file appeal against the order 09.03.2007 dismissing O.S. No.253/2001. Orders passed on 09.04.2010 dismissing our appeal.
  14. T.O.P. No.85/2007 (Principal District Judge) – Hemlata vs. SAAT and its trustees – transfer petition filed by Hemlata for conducting a joint trial of O.S. No.668/2002 and O.S. No.409/2005. TOP allowed on 23.09.2008 permitting joint trial. Trustees pay fine for the first time of Rs.375/-.
  15. C.R.P. No.3037/2007 (Madras High Court) – SAAT and its trustees vs. Hemlata – trustees challenge the order passed in C.M.A. No.7/2005 passed by PSJ, Pondicherry which confirmed the order passed in I.A. No.2937/2002 in O.S.No.668/2002 granting Hemlata status quo as an inmate of Ashram and which restrained the trustees from denying, depriving and stopping all the facilities as provided to every inmate. Order passed on 19.12.2008 adopting the order passed in C.R.P. No.3314/2007.
  16. C.R.P.No.3314/2007 (Madras High Court) – SAAT and its trustees vs. five sisters – trustees challenge the order passed in C.M.A. No.35/2005 passed by PSJ, Pondicherry which confirmed the order passed in I.A. No.1500/2005 in O.S.No.409/2005 granting Hemlata status quo as an inmate of Ashram and which restrained the trustees from denying, depriving and stopping all the facilities as provided to every inmate. Order dated 29.01.2008 is passed.
  17. M.P. No.1/2008 in C.R.P.No.3314/2007 (Madras High Court) – SAAT and its trustees vs. five sisters – trustees seek to modify the Order dated 29.01.2008 passed in C.R.P. No.3314/2007 under the guise of clarification. Order dated 04.08.2008 is passed.
  18. C.R.P. No.3759/2008 – (Madras High Court) – SAAT and its trustees vs. Hemlata – trustees challenge the order passed in T.O.P. No.85/2007 for conducting joint trial. On 28.11.2008 High Court passed an order directing to conduct simultaneous trial in O.S. No.668/2002 and O.S. No.409/2005. They have to be tried separately without one prejudicing the other.
  19. M.P. No.2/2008 in C.R.P.No.3314/2007 (Madras High Court) – SAAT and its trustees vs. five sisters –Order dated 04.08.2008 passed in M.P. No.1/2008 in C.R.P. No.3314/2007 is a modified version of the order passed 29.01.2008 passed in C.R.P. No.3314/2007 under the guise of a clarification. For a second time trustees seek to modify to their convenience the high court order under the guise of clarification. Order dated 21.06.2010 is passed.
  20. F.I.R. No.272/2010 (Chief Judicial Magistrate at Pondicherry) – Jayashree vs. Pondicherry Police – for getting directions to register an FIR for the assault denial of food which occurred on 22.07.2010 at Ashram Dining Room.
  21. F.I.R. No.273/2010 (Chief Judicial Magistrate at Pondicherry) – Hemlata vs. Pondicherry Police – for getting directions to register an FIR for the assault denial of food which occurred on 22.07.2010 at Ashram Dining Room.
  22. C.R.P. No.4219/2010 – SAAT and its trustees vs. five sisters – trustees challenge interim order passed in I.A. No.2094/2010 restoring food and all the basic amenities and facilities of the Ashram. On 22.07.2010 the trustees had forcibly and illegally implemented the exparte Order dated 21.06.2010 passed in M.P. No.2/2008 in C.R.P. No.3314/2007 and stopped our food and all facilities as inmates. Order dated 03.08.2012 is passed.
  23. Contempt Petition No.1483/2010 (Madras High Court) – SAAT and its trustees vs. five sisters – trustees file contempt proceedings against us because we did not follow the unexecutable order dated 21.06.2010 since the third party prevented its execution. No contempt is held.
  24. S.L.P. No.27620/2012 (Supreme Court) – five sisters vs. SAAT and its trustees – we challenge the order dated 03.08.2012 passed in C.R.P. No.4216/2010. Stay is granted on --- by Justice Gokhale and Justice Nijjar. Unexecutable final orders are passed under two minutes by Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Justice Ranjan Gogoi on 29.04.2014 who do not even give us an opportunity to be heard.
  25. Contempt No.395/2014 (Supreme Court) – SAAT and its trustees vs. five sisters – Trustees file contempt against five sisters for not following an unexecutable order dated 29.04.2014 passed by Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Justice Ranjan Gogoi. Ironically, after visiting the Ashram and enjoying the hospitality of the trustees and … Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya issues arrest warrant against the five sisters in spite of having gone through our letter where we express our inability to appear before the court because we have no means.

Wednesday, 15 October 2014


This is a very apt saying in Hindi. The best example is of Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, a sitting judge of the Supreme Court, who for whatever reasons best known to him is making a laughing stock of himself, open to great ridicule and exposure. Isn’t it ironical that having himself indulged in wrongdoing Justice Mukhopadhaya is taking to task the innocent non-wrongdoers?

In the first ever sitting on 29.04.2014 in our SLP No.27620/2012 before him he makes a comment in the open court that he has previously visited the Ashram. Then he refuses to hear our counsel and under two minutes he passes orders not relating either to the relief sought for in the SLP by us or the relief sought for by the trustees in their counter. On professional grounds he should have recused himself at the very first instance since he had already enjoyed the hospitality of the trustees.

The order dated 29.04.2014 reeks of mischief and foul-play in the following way.
  1. Order was passed under two minutes in our case which had been part-heard before a different bench.
  2. The malicious order is passed in an interim petition and especially when the trial of the suit before the Trial Court has been underway for the past 4 years.
  3. Our lawyers were literally threatened by these judges when they tried to present our case. No opportunity was given to us to put forward our case.
  4. The suit has been filed by us challenging the impugned report manufactured by the trustees which stands on no evidence but only hearsay and rumors and assumptions, and wherein no specific allegation or charge has been made out against us and based on which trustees illegally try to expel us from the Ashram, without following principles of natural justice. The Order of the Supreme Court is for evicting  us. Magic!!! Isn’t it.
  5. Gross violation of fundamental rights.
  6. The relief is sought for neither by the trustees nor by us. This relief has been pulled out of the magic-hat of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Justice Ranjan Gogoi, without having first read the SLP and all pertinent documents. Even a simple perusal of our Plaint filed in the suit and attached as Annexure to our SLP would have sufficed to come to the right conclusions.

Some Highlights of the Harassment and Victimization faced by five sisters at the hands of the trustees

I list below several occasions when we sisters have been assaulted, harassed, victimized, either on the instructions of the trustees or by their henchmen acting out of self-interest. 
  1. On 09.01.2001 at about 6.15 a.m. Jayashree Prasad, my eldest sister was brutally assaulted by one Krishnachander of Odhisha in front of Veda Prakash Johar (Ashram trustee and in-charge of Ashram Dining Room). He was then a voluntary worker at Ashram Dining Room wherein she was working and also Veda Prakash Johar’s protégé. As a reward of this assault he was made an inmate of the Ashram. (For more details read posting dated 09.01.2001)
  2. On 23.03.2001 all the sisters are denied breakfast at Ashram Dining Room. Hemlata is manhandled by inmates Manjunath and Satyanarayanamurthy. We were denied breakfast as a punishment because we were presistent in our demand for action to be taken against Krishna Chandra who had assaulted Jayashree. We gave a written complaint to the police for denial of food, for assault on Jayashree and manhandling of Hemlata. (For more details read posting dated 23.03.2001)
  3. On 03.08.2004 – Arunashri Prasad, my second elder sister, was attempted to be molested by one Chandramani Patel. He had been harassing her for quite some time by sending pornographic chits and making sexual advances which she was determinedly refusing. (For more details read postings dated 03.08.2004, 19.09.2004 and 13.10.2004)
  4. On 01.06.2004 at about 8 a.m. I was beaten up by one inmate Dhiraj Bannerjee in front of my relatives who were present for no apparent cause except following trustees’ direction.
  5. (For more details read posting dated 01.06.2006)
  6. On 29.12.2006 at about 4 p.m. Arunashri Prasad was dragged by her hair and brutally beaten up by Subhashini Mohanty at the Ashram Laundry in front of its acting incharge.
  7. (For more details read posting dated 29.12.2006)
  8. On 22.07.2010 at about 12 p.m. Jayashree and myself we were beaten under instructions of the trustees by  Purushottam Kothari, Maya Khandelwal, Matriprasad, Jahnavi Ravikanti, and we were denied food at the Ashram Dining. The police were brought to the Ashram Dining Room to forcibly implement the Order of the Madras High Court dated 21.06.2010. (For more details read posting dated 22.07.2010)
  9. On 25.11.2013 Jayashree is threatened and intimidated at about 3.00 a.m. by Michale Neville, Prashant, Chandramani Patel. (For more details read posting 30.11.2013)

Tuesday, 14 October 2014

View Supreme Court Office Order Online

Office Report in Contempt Proceedings now available on Supreme Court website, at last. But as yet no Order passed on 13.10.2014 is available.

Latest office order is presented below. It says that the court has received our letter intimating the reason for our absence as no means to appear before the Hon'ble Court.

Monday, 13 October 2014

Arrest Warrant Issued by Supreme Court

Yet another mischief played by the Trustees of Ashram???!!!

On the display board of the Supreme Court, through the internet one can track the cases being heard in the court as listed in the final list. However today for about 20 minutes there was no display board all the courts were in session.

Justice Sudhanshu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, who ought to have recused himself from hearing the contempt proceedings, since he enjoyed the hospitality of the Ashram Trustees, not only failed to take into account our letter but he has also issued warrant of arrest against we five sisters. 

Prophecy of Bosco Dominique, reporter of 'Times of India', comes true… Or was it a prophecy?

Friday, 3 October 2014

Visit of Chief Justice of Madras High Court

Chief Justice of Madras High Court comes to the Ashram at about 5.15 pm. People have seen him being entertained by Matriprasad and Devdip. As per protocol the Chief Justice should stay at Raj Nivas but he did not put up there. Where did he spend his holiday at Pondicherry?

In fact, in 2009, we had written a letter to Chief Justice of Madras High Court stating that Judges from the Supreme Court and various High Courts across the country were constantly being entertained by the trustees and their henchmen. Justice K. Venkataraman took offence at our letter and became vindictive towards us because of this letter. We are producing the letter hereunder.

Wednesday, 1 October 2014

News-item Reporting Arrest

Trustees of Ashram bring out an article in ‘Times of India’ written by Bosco Dominique. We have repeatedly experienced that he and Debjani Datta, two local reporters of English dailies, only do one side reporting. Our complaints to this effect have not been entertained by the newspapers’ management. Is one sided reporting correct? IF NO, then these reporters must be banned by the Press Trust of India because of wrong reporting with the intention of misguiding and misrepresenting to the public. 

Anyways, Bosco Dominique reports that we five sisters are going to be arrested. Let us wait and see what happens.