The Deccan Herald:
Seer case accused turns hostile
The Sankararaman murder case took a dramatic turn on Wednesday with a key accused telling a magistrate’s court in Kancheepuram that he was forced by the police to implicate the Shankaracharya of the Kanchi Mutt, Sri Jayendra Saraswathi, in the case. […]
Accused in Kanchi case recants
In a twist to the investigation into the Sankararaman murder case, in which Kanchi Shankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati has been arrested, one of the five key accused on Wednesday did a turnaround, saying all his earlier statements were made under “duress”. […]

While the above developments are consistent with most trial cases in India, more so in a politically-ridden case, this is indeed a turn-around that will impact the way things go over the next few days.

Meanwhile, TVR Shenoy in his latest article says The case against seer is too feeble questions the whereabouts of “Appu” the main accused and makes his point that the case against the Shakaracharya will not stand in the court of law. He ends his very interesting article, with:

Any lawyer could topple the case against the Shankaracharya as it stands. Take for instance the allegation that he had to be arrested when he was because there was a helicopter standing by to whisk him away to Nepal. Is there any civilian helicopter that actually has that kind of range?

The Shankaracharya would be well within his rights to demand an immediate trial. He can ask his legal team to stop any more demands for bail. And the odds are that any trial would end in an honourable discharge.

This leads me to my final point for this column. I am sure the Tamil Nadu authorities know that the case against the Shankaracharya is really too feeble to stand. So what on earth were they thinking about when they staged that arrest? There is something that doesn’t add up in this case, and I am not too sure that even the appearance of Appu will answer all the questions.

Your thoughts?


  1. A pretty good article. This, in conjunction with today’s news about the accused claiming torture and turning “hostile”, one can see why Karunanidhi has suddenly started to backtrack.

    Also, I made a point to recently verify the issue regarding audit of trusts. The Mutt is not a public trust, and even the accusations by the DMK were only about alleged mismanagement of funds – not misappropriation of funds. Essentially, the Acharya can manage funds in any manner he deems fit, and only the donors have the right to raise a complaint, if any (which they’ve not done till now). However, if they do so, then the government can intervene as per the doctrine of Government being the “Trustee of all trustees”.

    1. I knew you’d like it… 🙂

      I stick with my earlier analysis of TVR’s article… Today’s article just makes it more evident. Especially the “note” at the end of it!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: