OUR LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA

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.

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.

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.

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 !!!

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.

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.

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.

ULTA CHOR KOTAWAL KO DAATE – POLICE TAKEN TO TASK BY THIEF

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)

Miscarriage of Justice by Corrupt Supreme Court Judges

With great difficulty and with an even heavier heart, in spite of losing all hope we were constrained to prefer S.L.P. No.27620/2012 before the Supreme Court of India. Luckily Justice H.L. Gokhale and Justice Nijjar were hearing our case and they granted us stay.

Thereafter our case was temporarily listed in April 2014 and without getting listed in the final list it was adjourned to 15.07.2014. However on 26.04.2014 suddenly our case was preponed by about 1 ½ months and got listed on 29.04.2014 before a new bench comprising of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Justice Ranjan Gogoi. Both these judges were totally biased and without giving us any opportunity to present our case they passed perverse and malafide order in interim petition, especially when the trial was underway in the suit for the past four years. These two judges literally threatened our lawyers when they tried to present our case and under two minutes malafide order of eviction was granted on 29.04.2014 by these judges.

Order dated 29.04.2014 is produced hereunder.

Justice S. Manikumar - Another Compromised Judge?

Even though the police had assisted the trustees in illegally stopping our food they abstained from assisting us to get back our food at Ashram Dining Room. In fact even our complaints for the assault on 22.07.2010 on us by some inmates were registered only under the Magistrate Court’s directions.

The trustees transparent acts of malice and duplicity came to light when knowing fully well and having received the letter dated 25.07.2010 from the Warden of Jenny Working Women’s Hostel, the trustees sent money orders to Jenny Hostel’s address for all of us, but their correspondences to us were all sent at the Ambabhikshu House address, wherein we were still residing.

We filed I.A.No.2094/2010 for restoring our food and all other facilities. Orders were passed allowing us to eat at Ashram Dining Room on 27.10.2010.

Trustees approached directly Justice K. Venkataraman and filed C.R.P. No.4219/2010 and Contempt No.1483/2010 against we five sisters. In fact in Contempt Petition No.1483/2010 Justice K. Venkataraman even named Mrs. R. Vasanthi (the upright judge of PDM who had passed order for restoring food and all other facilities). Thank god some sense prevailed and he did not pursue his vengeance against this most honorable judge.

However Justice K. Venkatarman went on harassing and intimidating my lawyer at Madras High Court, who with great difficulty managed to transfer both C.R.P. No.4219/2010 and Contempt No.1483/2010 to another bench consisting of Justice S. Manikumar.

Justice S. Manikumar also played foul because he was scared of his senior namely Justice K. Venkatarman and in any event corrupt judges always stick together and watch out each other’s back. Anyhow Justice S. Manikumar heard the arguments on both sides in April 2011. He did not record any contempt on our side but he took offence since we had used the word illegal while speaking of High Court order in our counter in the proceedings. We apologized for this mistake.

Generally High Courts and Supreme Court orders are dictated then and there in the open court, at least the directive part. But Justice Manikumar failed to follow procedure. He posted the matter for orders and after more than a year, past two summer vacations, he passed an even more malafide order dated 03.08.2012, not only upholding Justice K. Venkatarman’s order but modifying it still further and literally ordering eviction on an interim petition revision.

Manoj Das Gupta needs Women Props to Talk to Five Sisters

The trustees had illegally prevented us from having food at the Ashram Dining Room intimidating us with the presence of police. The Warden of Jenny Women’s Hostel had refused to accommodate us and had also informed Manoj Das Gupta about their reluctance to continue with whatever underhand undertaking that had taken place between them. However the trustees not only continued to deny and deprive we five sisters from partaking food from Dining Room, they failed to make any alternative provisions for our sustenance. Therefore we filed I.A.No.2094/2010 for restoring our food and all other facilities. Orders were passed allowing us to eat at Ashram Dining Room on 27.10.2010.

In the evening of 27.10.2010 we five sisters made urgent attempts to meet Manoj Das Gupta. We finally landed up at Manushri Chatterjee’s house, his girl-friend with whom he daily has his dinner. We rang the bell and none other than Manjushri opened the door. After several requests, during which her brother Swadesh came out and tried to shoo us away but we did not leave, Manoj Das Gupta finally came forward to talk us. We informed him that our food and all other amenities and facilities and as provided to every inmate had been restored to us on 27.10.2010 by the order passed in I.A. No.2094/2010 by the Hon’ble Judge of the Principal District Munsif at Pondicherry. At first he simply refused to believe us. Then when we read out the directive portion of order of restoration, he hid behind his façade of seemly obedience and questioned the veracity of the order.

Only when we categorically informed him that we were going to eat our dinner at Ashram Dining Room that he toned down and sarcastically replied, ‘one more day of not eating in Dining Room will not really kill you.’ What a thoroughly reprehensible statement! We answered him that only we knew with what great difficulty we had survived this ordeal without having food but he simply laughed mockingly. He then told us that we could only eat at Dining Room after he had consulted with the other trustees, his co-conspirators, and asked us to meet him the next day at Trust Office, inaptly named ‘Grace Office’ by the trustees since this office has brought total disgrace to the whole of Ashram community.

As instructed we went to Dis-“Grace Office” today at about 11.30 p.m. Once again Manoj Das Gupta met us surrounded and supported by women-inmates. Shilpi Shroff, Jahnavi Ravikanti, Abhipsa Nagda were some of the women we spotted standing behind him when Manoj Das Gupta informed us that we could go and have our lunch at Ashram Dining Room. We wanted in writing his statement but he assured us that there would be no problem and that no one would stop us.

However when we went to the Ashram Dining Room people took our photos, which is not permitted, and passed nasty comments. Thank God, at least nobody denied us food.

Trustees Maliciously Keep Denying Food to Five Sisters

Trustees send a letter at a wrongly mentioned address to Jayashree enclosing a non-certified copy of the malafide order dated 21.06.2010. We inform the trustees that the order is not verifiable and even as we are taking steps to obtain a certified copy, the trustees forcibly implement this order.

On 22.07.2010 we five sisters go for lunch. 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 22.07.2010).

On 23.07.2010 I meet the Warden of Jenny Working Women’s Hostel saying that our food has been stopped at Ashram Dining Room and we have been directed to reside at the hostel by the Madras High Court. Thereafter on 27.07.2010 I write a letter to the Warden asking her about our position vis-à-vis her hostel. In answer I get a letter from her dated 25.07.2010 which she has sent to the trustees stating that their representatives have misrepresented and mislead them and they are in no position to accommodate us.

In spite of receiving letter dated 25.07.2010 from the Warden of Jenny Women Hostel the trustees have failed to provide food to us till date.

Typed-copy of letter dated 25.07.2010 (Warden’s letter to trustees) is produced below.

A Glaring Example of Collusion Between Pondicherry Police and Ashram Trustees

On 21.06.2010, without our knowledge and in our absence Justice K. Venkataraman of Madras High Court passes perverse orders directing we five sisters to accommodate ourselves at Jenny Working Women’s Hostel. Thereafter the trustees send Jayashree an uncertified copy of this order at wrong address. We cannot verify its authenticity and so we take steps to get this order by ourselves from the Madras High Court.

Meanwhile we were secretly informed that trustees are going to stop our food and so on 22.07.2010 at about 12 p.m. together we five sisters go for lunch at Ashram Dining Room. There we see police constables men and women, as well as Matriprasad, Purushottam Kothari, Maya Khandelwal, Jahnavi Ravikanti, among others, waiting for us. The inmates come forward to forcibly stop us and beat Jayashree and me in the process. The police are simply watching the show. We are denied food at the Ashram Dining. We go towards the Lt. Governor’s house to seek a meeting with him. We are chased by the police and land up instead at the Chief Secretariat. By then media persons have arrived and after much ado the Chief Secretary Mr. Chandra Mohan gives us an appointment.

We apprise Mr. Chandra Mohan of how illegally and forcibly the trustees have implemented the order through assault and police intimidation. He calls the SP North one N.T. Sivadasan. Mr. Sivadasan tries to defend himself by spinning a long yarn when in fact he has received money from the trustees for helping them to stop our food. We charged him with this in front of Mr. Chandra Mohan and he did not defend himself. He is given a royal dressing down from Mr. Chandra Mohan, Chief Secretary, but the damage is done and they are both unwilling to undo the damage viz. reversing the denial of food in the Ashram Dining Room.

We have no food to eat. For how long? Anybody's guess.

International Guest House as Second Alternate Accommodation

The trustees did not like our choice of alternate accommodation as ‘Golconde Guest House’ and they definitely did not pay for our expenses of daily needs and necessities as asked for. So they rushed back to Justice K. Venkataraman and filed a petition for clarification in M.P. No.1/2008 in C.R.P. No. 3314/2007 for clarification of the order dated 29.01.2008.

When the so-called clarification petition was heard, Justice K. Venkataraman, had been completely won over by the trustees charismatic façade consisting of wealth, piety and false spirituality. He was hostile towards us and reprimanded us for delaying the smooth compliance of his order. Thereafter on 04.08.2008, under the guise of clarification, Justice K. Venkataraman modified his own Order dated 29.01.2008. We were directed to reside outside all Ashram-owned premises.

Once again we complied with his unjust malafide order. We requested to be accommodated at ‘International Guest House’, which belongs to Sri Aurobindo Society and not to the Ashram. We also requested to be given Rs.275/- (for food) and Rs.125/- (for basic expenses) per day for each one of us. The trustees manipulated the management of ‘International  Guest House’ and asked us to find another place where food was included along with lodging.

So, we asked for rooms at ‘Sea Side Guest House’. This guest house also belongs to Sri Aurobindo Society and not to Ashram. The trustees were enraged by our reasonable request because even at the first instance they never wished to provide us with any alternate accommodation, their wish was simply to throw us out on the streets because we protested against sexual harassment and because we abstained from entertaining their henchmen. 

The trustees are cunningly moving towards their goal using legal means with the active help of Justice K. Venkataraman. Let us watch their next malicious move.

Golconde Guest House as Alternate Accommodation

Meanwhile the trustees preferred an appeal in C.M.A. No. 35/2005 against the interim order dated 10.06.2005 at Appellate Authority Pondicherry. Trustees’ Appeal was dismissed on 30.01.2007 and the Trial Court Order dated 10.06.2005 was upheld since the balance of convenience was in our favor.

The trustees then preferred a revision at the Madras High Court in C.R.P. No.3314/2007 challenging the dismissal of their appeal on 30.01.2007. Justice K. Venkataraman was the presiding judge who openly sided with the trustees. In fact he repeatedly told our lawyer that the girls should be taught a lesson of how life is lived outside the Ashram!

Trial Court order dated 10.06.2005 and Appellate Court order dated 30.01.2007 did not suffer from any legal infirmity and were based on principles of natural justice as well as balance of convenience.In spite of no question of law being raised by the trustees, much less a legal infirmity, Justice K. Venkataraman, under the guise of showing concern for us by stating that when trial commences the girls will be further harassed and in order to safeguard the girls’ interests it would be better if they changed residence, passed order on 29.01.2008 directing us to reside in some other accommodation other than in Ambabhikshu House.

This was not the relief sought for by the trustees in their C.R.P. No.3314/2007 and definitely not by us. But since we were helpless we complied with Justice K. Venkataraman’s malafide order dated 29.01.2008. 

‘Golconde Guest House’ is a guest house maintained by the Ashram for visitors and some inmates.We requested to be accommodated at ‘Golconde Guest House’ till the trial was over. As far as food was concerned the question did not arise and Ashram Dining Room could continue as before. We also asked for a reasonable sum of Rs.100/- per day to be paid to each one of us to meet the expenses of our daily needs and necessities since our ‘Prosperity’ had been stopped.

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.

Trustees Deny Breakfast to Five Sisters

After Jayashree was assaulted on 09.01.2001, a group comprising of Nirmal Swain, Girish Panda, Santosh Nayak, Krishna Chandra, to name a few goondas of the trustees, had threatened the trustees that if any action was taken against Krishna Chandra, the whole oriya group would do a mass walk out of Dining Room. Since Ashram Dining Room functions mainly on the strength of the oriyas, the trustees were forced to shut up and tried to suppress the assault on Jayashree. In fact the trustees realizing the potential for future use of this group, readily rewarded Krishna Chandra by facilitating his stay in the Ashram.

But we persisted in my demand for justice to all the trustees, most especially Dilip Datta. In order to stop Hemlata and cover up their inaction the trustees began threatening and harassing me. I was punished and was forced to carry food in tiffin carrier if I wanted to eat. For three weeks I suffered in silence then decided to resume my food at Ashram Dining Room defying the unjust punishment imposed upon me. I first wrote letters to all the concerned trustees informing them of my intention. Then on 22.03.2001 I had my lunch and my dinner at the Ashram Dining Room. However when on 23.03.2001 I went with my four elder sisters to partake breakfast at the Ashram Dining Room at about 7.30 a.m.

All the sisters are denied breakfast. I was manhandled by inmates Manjunath and Satyanarayanamurthy. I gave a written complaint to the police for denial of food, for assault on Jayashree and my manhandling. On 24.03.2001 police called the above named inmates to police station and after questioning them, police issued a Report in Non-Cognizable Offence against my complaint and made wrong entries. Police also mentioned that it was a civil offence and matters should be sorted out with the trustees.

Which law-book states that cases of assault and manhandling and denial of food are civil offences? A new law-book probably as yet unheard of…