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!!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Procedure not followed?

What is pertinent to note that in their hurry to harass us the trustees have not themselves followed the law. Apparently some Form-I is required for service of notice, so I am told. But no such form exists either in the notice received through RPAD nor through the court given by the Court Amin.

10 Years of Needless Battle Protracted by Trustees

In the interim junction petition in I.A. No.935/2001 filed in O.S. No.253/2001 challenging the illegal show cause notice issued by the trustees, due to some technical difficulty a vague order was passed. Trustees and my four elder sisters, both sides challenged this order before the Hon’ble Madras High Court. C.R.P. No. 2230/2001 & No. 2534/2001 in O.S.No.253/2001 were preferred and Mr. Justice P.D. Dinakaran, without appreciating the merits of the case, passed even more vague orders and confused the whole issue still further. By a common order dated 29.10.2001 both the CRPs were disposed off.

Thereafter the suit went for trial prejudiced by this vague order of the Madras High Court and subsequently the suit was dismissed on 09.03.2007. My sisters preferred A.S. No.24/2007. By then five sisters’ case in O.S. No.409/2005 had already been filed challenging their illegal expulsion. So the trustees made an even greater jilebi and further clouded the understanding of the already confused judge. Obviously other factors, best left unsaid, were also instrumental for the outcome. On 09.04.2010, exactly 10 years from the day of the institution of O.S. No.24/2007, our appeal was dismissed. Since we were so bogged down with the issues relating to O.S. No.409/2005 we desisted from further appealing before the Hon’ble High Court.

So for about 10 long years we were constrained to fight a needless battle to satisfy the whims and fancies of the trustees attempting to prevent their highhandedness.

Joint Trial Ordered

As the starting point of all our cases is the assault on Jayashree, we felt that it would be better if our cases O.S. No.668/2002 (pending before I Additional Musif, Pondicherry) and O.S. No.409/2005 (pending before Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry) could be jointly tried to meet the ends of justice. We had suffered enough and realized the chaos the trustees created through their misrepresentations and irrelevant documentation in order to clog the proceedings and confuse the issues. Therefore we decided to file a transfer petition for conducting joint trial.

T.O.P. No.85/2007 was filed before the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry for transferring O.S. No.668/2002 from I ADM to be tried together with O.S. No.409/2005 at PDM. The trustees at first refused to appear and were set exparte. When directions were issued in C.R.P. No.3314/2007 for the orders to be passed in the pending T.O.P. trustees filed a petition to permit them to present their objections. Their petition was allowed but the trustees were fined. Ashram Trust and four trustees, (Veda Prakash Johar excluded) was fined Rs.75/- each for failing to respect the court and from abstaining to appear. Trustees paid Rs.375/-. Veda Prakash Johar remained exparte since the trustees had illegally taken away his trusteeship.

On 23.09.2008 order was passed in T.O.P. for joint trial. 

Five Sisters file Contempt Petition Against Ashram Trustees

After issuing a show cause notice dated 24.01.2005, which contained no charges leveled against us, and enclosing an incomplete report of A.V. Nagarajan, the trustees proceeded to expel us by pasting expulsion notices. We were constrained to file O.S. No.409/2005 before the Principal district Munsif at Pondicherry. (See posting on 07.02.2005)

The trustees pressured Mr. N. Krishnasamy, the Hon’ble Judge of PDM, to reject our case. But heartfelt thanks to another upright judicial officer who granted us exparte interim injunction on 28.04.2005 in I.A. No.1500/2005 in O.S. No.409/2005, restraining the trustees and their henchmen from taking any action against us based on A.V. Nagarajan’s report, and noting that the balance of convenience was in our favor. Subsequently both sides (trustees and us) were given full opportunity to present their side of the case and the injunction was made final on 10.06.2005 after a thorough enquiry.

However the trustees disobeyed the order of the Hon’ble Judge Mr. Krishnasamy. On 01.07.2005 all the five sisters were denied ‘Prosperity’ items, which is given to every inmate to meet their daily and monthly needs since the inmates do not receive any money. We filed Contempt Petition No. 3782/2005 against trustees since they disobeyed the court order. This contempt petition is still pending disposal at Pondicherry.

There is still Justice in Judiciary

The acceptance of the suit O.S. No.668/2002 is challenged by the trustees. As per them my legal remedy lies only before the Madras High Court. I manage to get orders to the effect that I can challenge Mr. Menon’s impugned undated report at Pondicherry.

Meanwhile C.S. Narasimhan, trustees’ lawyer, gives oral undertaking before the court that food and shelter for me will not be disturbed. Yet lo and behold! I am denied food at Ashram Dining Room.

On 22.12.2002 I go for breakfast and I am denied food by Prafulla Kumari @ Pappu, Dining Room in-charge. My plate of food is snatched from me and in no uncertain terms I am told to leave. Luckily for me, or so I think, I see Mr. Narasimhan eating at Dining Room, which is his regular practice. I approach him and ask him to intervene to prevent violation of his undertaking. He shouts at me and asks me to approach the court. The beauty of the whole drama is that since Mr. Narasimhan gave an oral undertaking and since his clients, namely the trustees, are totally unethical, Mr. Narasimhan has also chosen to become unethical. So when the case comes before the Hon’ble Judge he denies having ever given such an undertaking. Amazing!

Anyhow after a thorough enquiry I am at last given final order of status quo on 31.12.2002. Everything, except the ‘Prosperity’ is restored to me. I am deeply grateful and wish to thank Mrs. Rajalakshmi, the Hon’ble Judge of the I ADM, Pondicherry, who upheld justice in spite of crushing pressure to the contrary.

Suresh Chandra De (retd. IPS) Comes to his senses – Thank God

After still more vague Order dated 29.10.2001 passed by Mr. Justice P.D. Dinakaran in C.R.P. No. 2230/2001 & No. 2534/2001 in O.S.No.253/2001, trustees proceeded to conduct an enquiry against my four elder sisters while O.S. No.253/2001 was still pending. The trustees appointed one Mr. Suresh Chandra De, a retired police officer who had settled in Pondicherry, as the enquiry officer.

Suresh De, without going into the facts and circumstances of the case, issued my four elder sisters notice of enquiry. We issued a Legal Notice to Suresh De against this enquiry but he did not desist. We were constrained to file an interim petition in O.S. No.253/2001 against the trustees and Suresh De, for directing them to stop this enquiry.

The trustees rushed to the Madras High Court and filed a contempt petition. Trustees issued us personal notice informing us to be present when the matter would be heard by Mr. Justice P.D. Dinakaran. We appeared on 27.11.2002 and Matriprasad was also present in the court hall. Justice Dinakaran loudly asked Matriprasad from his high seat demanding to know why we ladies had been called since he had not issued any notice of contempt. Matriprasad had no reply.

Thereafter Mr. Justice Dinakaran orally directed Matriprasad that matters should be settled out of court by the trustees. A series of attempts for reconciliations were made but since the trustees repeatedly denied having caused us harassment and victimization, all the attempts failed. 

Good sense has prevailed at last as Mr. Suresh Chandra De desists from conducting any enquiry and we also did not press our interim petition against him in good faith.

Today Justice P.D. Dinakaran has dismissed the Contempt Petition filed by the trustees and no contempt was recorded against my four elder sisters.

Madras High Court Shows Leniency – Miscarriage of Justice

The trustees categorically maintained in all their correspondence and pleadings filed in O.S. No.215/2001 that only after conducting an “in camera enquiry” Hemlata was sought to be expelled from the Ashram. The trustees however have failed to produce any documentary evidence of this alleged enquiry proceedings till date.

In fact, in all their correspondences and pleadings relating to and filed in O.S. No.215/2001, the trustees have subtly and cunningly altered their concocted story to make it more and more plausible. Only hearsay and alleged confessions have been taken recourse to for building up their defamatory concoction.

To cover up their lapse the trustees decided to illegally constitute a second enquiry by appointing one Mr. K. Natarajan, retired district Judge, with Vijay Poddar of Sri Aurobindo Society as the presenting officer. I was issued with notice for appearance and I refused to participate since O.S. No.215/2001 was pending and since the trustees had vehemently claimed that an “in camera enquiry” had been conducted. I challenged the constitution of this enquiry in O.S. No.215/2001 through an interim petition in I.A. No.2672/2001 and the Hon’ble Court directed the trustees to continue with the enquiry proceedings.

But the self-proclaimed incarnates of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, namely the trustees, are a law unto themselves, who obey and give a damn for nobody but themselves and their self-interests. So Mr. Natarajan and Mr. Vijay Poddar were told to proceed with the enquiry. It was completed and even a report finding me guilty, so I am told, had been produced. But I have not been furnished with a copy of this enquiry’s report.

Now the trustees did not like to be told that they cannot conduct a second enquiry parallel. So they approached the Hon’ble Madras High Court. Mr. Justice R. Balasubramanium, entertained C.R.P. No.787/2002, filed by the trustees. Mr. Sri Ram Panchu (senior lawyer) and Mr. C.A. Diwakar, trustees’ lawyers misrepresented before the High Court that the trustees had only conducted an “informal enquiry” and being a spiritual institution and ignorant about the ways of the world, the trustees inadvertently made a mistake. Wrongly gaining the sympathy of the High Court and also through deliberate misrepresentation, the court showed leniency and allowed them to conduct an enquiry (third on trustees count) by appointing Mr. N.P.K. Menon, a retired District Judge. The trustees were also directed to pay an initial sum of Rs.15,000/- to Mr. Menon. How much will really be paid is anyone’s guess…

The miscarriage of justice occurred when Justice Balasubramaniam summarily terminated my suit at Pondicherry, in O.S. No.215/2001, without even going into the merits of the case and conducting a trial.

History in the Making - Five Accused-Trustees Appear Before JM I, Pondicherry

Such a sight as was never seen before happened on the fateful day of 05.11.2001. In the criminal case filed by Hemlata in S.T.R. No.864/2001, the accused trustees and other accused inmates were compelled to appear before the Judicial Magistrate I at Pondicherry. Here is what happened on that day.

Five accused trustees – Harikant Patel, Veda Prakash Johar, Dilip Datta, Manoj Das Gupta and Albert Patel @ Avinash – were represented by a hoard of lawyers. The three accused inmates – Krishna Belliappa, Manjunath and Satyanarayanamurthy – were represented by another set of lawyers.

On 05.11.2001 Harikant Patel and Veda Prakash Johar, for the sake of gaining court’s sympathy, were brought by five inmates each in wheelchair. One of the chair-bearers was Lalit Varma of Aurodhan Art Gallery, who equals four men in size, accompanied Veda Prakash Johar, his uncle. The trustees were accompanied by chosen henchmen viz. Matriprasad, Prushottam Iyyengar, Prafulla Patel, Saumya Bableshwar, Nirmal Chandra Swain, to name a few. So, there were about 23-25 inmates/henchmen of the trustees present on this auspicious day of hearing. Now add to this another 10-15 lawyers, clerks and well-wishers, all serving the trustees and their henchmen. So about 40-45 people were present on the accused trustees’ side.

On my side my lawyer, Mr. Cyril Vincent, Jayashree and myself were present.

The criminal case was generally called at the end to decrease humiliation caused to the trustees. This day was no exception. Before the case was called the court had been emptied to accommodate this huge group. So imagine the scene when we all appeared! Trustees and their coterie of about 40-45 people on one side, only three people - Mr. Cyril Vincent, Jayashree and myself – on the other side. Since the court hall was small it was a fascinating sight.

When the proceedings began C.S. Narasimhan opened his statement by saying this girl (indicating me) is harassing and intimidating us (pointing to the trustees). Mr. Vincent simply shrugged his shoulder and the judge burst out laughing. Mr. Narasimhan went red in the face and abstained from making such blunt allegations. But the hilarity of the situation totally escaped the trustees! 

Hemlata Files Criminal Case For Defamation

Trustees Letter dated 22.03.2001 to Hemlata read ‘Strictly Personal and Confidential’ but no confidentiality had been maintained by them. The trustees had widely circulated this defamatory letter to inmates, locals, police and even made open representation in the court without producing any evidence for my alleged pregnancy. So after issuing Legal Notices to the trustees and one Krishna Belliappa who was supposed to have made me pregnant, as claimed by the trustees, on 03.04.2001, to safeguard our interests, I was constrained to file a defamation case against the Ashram trustees viz. Harikant Patel, Veda Prakash Johar, Dilip Datta, Manoj Das Gupta and Albert Patel @ Avinash together with three inmates viz. Krishna Belliappa, Manjunath, Satyanarayanamurthy.

Even before notice could reach the accused persons, the trustees had come to know about my criminal case and they proceeded to harass and victimize my other sisters. My four elder sisters were issued a malafide show cause notice for an incident which never occurred accusing them of ‘misbehavior and defiance’. This notice contained the punishment without having first ascertained the veracity of the alleged incident.

Immediately after issuing this malafide notice Nivedita’s work was illegally stopped by Chitra Sen at Tresor Nursing Home and no reason was given. Seeing the trustees highhandedness my four elder sisters filed a civil suit challenging the show cause notice back-dated to 02.04.2001 in O.S. No.253/2001 before the Hon’ble I Additional District Munsif at Pondicherry on 09.04.2001, seeking to restrain the trustees from their unjustified illegal actions.

Interestingly on 07.04.2001, the day Nivedita’s work was illegally terminated, trustees issued a reply notice to the legal notice issued by me for causing defamation, based on some undisclosed medical records of Hemlata available at the Tresor Nursing Home. Thereafter the contents of this notice were presented as counter in the interim injunction application filed in I.A. No.814/2001 in O.S. No.215/2001.

The story of allegation of misconduct by Hemlata was subtly changed from trustees’ defamatory letter dated 22.03.2001 to their reply notice dated 07.04.2001 and their counter filed in I.A. No.814/2001. The subtleties made all the difference and clearly indicated that the whole bunch of allegations was a concocted affair by the trustees, hand-in-glove with Chitra Sen, to deny and deprive us justice for Jayashree’s assault.