Hari Sampath’s Failed Supreme Court Writ Petition Against Sathya Sai BabaSaiSathyaSai.com’s Original Statement:On this
saisathyasai.com website, I (
Joe Moreno) made the following
statement of fact, which no
Anti-Sai Activist can refute with
verifiable information or documentation:
“Sathya Sai Baba has never had even one single complaint lodged against him by any alleged victim, first-hand, in India. As a matter of fact, not even one alleged victim has even tried to file a basic police complaint or court case against Sathya Sai Baba in India (the only place where courts would have jurisdiction over Baba as an individual defendant).”
Barry Pittard claimed on his defamatory Anti-Sai blog (without specifically naming me) that my original statement is incorrect. It is apparent that Barry Pittard obviously has difficulty understanding my original statement and confused court case
attempts with
actual court cases. Although questionable court cases
have been attempted against Sathya Sai Baba, he
never had to obtain a lawyer to defend himself because the court cases
never made it to trail because they were
rejected by Judges who saw through their obvious fraudulence. To this day, Sathya Sai Baba has
never (ever) been formally charged with
any crime (sexual or otherwise) in a court of law in India. This is an
indisputable statement of fact and I suggest Barry Pittard stop confusing himself and others by failing to differentiate between
attempts to file a court case with an
actual court case with lawyers representing a plaintiff and defendant. Furthermore, Barry Pittard’s citations of court case
attempts were
never filed (first-hand) in India by alleged victims.
Beginnings: Hari Sampath’s CBI Investigation Request Via Mail:Hari Sampath (an alleged ex-devotee who was
never sexually abused) wrote a letter to the CBI in India attempting to get them to act against Sathya Sai Baba (although he and
all of the alleged victims were half-way around the world). The CBI does
not investigate conventional crimes without the direction of the Supreme Court, a High Court or State Governments in India. On the official CBI website, the following statements are made:
“As a matter of policy the CBI does not entertain anonymous / pseudonymous complaints. The CBI does not take up investigation of conventional crimes like murder, theft, robbery etc unless directed by the Supreme Court / High Courts or referred by State Governments. This is because ‘police’ is a State subject under the Indian Constitution and the basic jurisdiction to investigate crimes is that of State police. The CBI’s power to investigate cases is derived from the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. The CBI can investigate the offences notified under this Act in the Union Territories and with the consent of State Governments, in the States. Besides, since the CBI is a small force, administratively also it has not been considered expedient for the CBI to investigate the conventional crimes unless directed by the Supreme Court/High Courts or referred by State Governments.” (Reference)
Consequently, Hari Sampath’s letter to the CBI was
totally useless as he did
not follow the process of law in relation to CBI complaints. Hari Sampath attempted to circumvent the Supreme Court, the High Courts and the State Governments in India with a
complaint letter mailed from the USA (although he was
not a victim) and actually expected the CBI to launch a full scale inquiry against Sai Baba.
After getting nowhere with the CBI, Hari Sampath somehow obtained the long-distance representation of three lawyers in India (Kamini Jaiswal, Prashant Kumar and Gaurav Agarwal) who filed a writ petition with the Supreme Court Of India on his behalf as an apparent (and failed) publicity stunt against
Sathya Sai Baba. It is important to note that Hari Sampath was
not present in India during the hearing of the writ petition. He was in the USA and the writ petition was filed based on an affidavit he submitted under his name.
Proof That Hari Sampath’s Supreme Court Petition Was Rejected:The following scan is Hari Sampath’s
failed writ petition with the Supreme Court Of India:
Important facts about the scan:
- Sathya Sai Baba’s name does not appear anywhere on the writ petition.
- Although Hari Sampath was the sole Petitioner, he was never sexually abused or an alleged victim of Sathya Sai Baba.
- Although Hari Sampath was the sole Petitioner, he was not present in India during the hearing of the writ petition. He was in the USA and was being given updates by the lawyers over the phone.
- Hari Sampath alleged he was attempting to represent alleged victims (via an affidavit) who (like him) were not in India. It is absurd to think that this writ petition had any legitimacy. Since when is any court case sought by a non-victim attempting to act on behalf of alleged victims (none of whom were in India and none of whom filed a writ petition first-hand)? It is clear that the writ petition was a publicity stunt. Unfortunately for Hari Sampath, it blew up in his face.
- No lawyers were presented on behalf of Sathya Sai Baba because this case was not an official court case. It was a writ petition for a preliminary hearing.
- Justice G. B. Pattanaik and Justice R. C. Lahoti heard the petition. Neither of these Justices have ever been shown to be Sai Devotees, as erroneously claimed by Anti-Sai Activists.
- The writ petition was rejected and the Record of Proceedings clearly stated:
“Upon hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER: We are not inclined to entertain this petition under article 32 of the Constitution of India. It is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner may approach the appropriate forum.”
- Instead of approaching the appropriate forum (the High Court in Andhra Pradesh), the case was dropped by all three lawyers with no further action.
This writ petition (which was
not an official court case) is what Barry Pittard cited as an
actual court case made against Sathya Sai Baba (a
complete distortion of facts that amounts to nothing less than prevarication).
Hari Sampath’s Spin & Propaganda About His Failed Petition:The following emails from Hari Sampath
clearly show how he attempted to spin his
failures into something legitimate:
----- Original Message -----
From: “Hari Sampath”
To: (e-mail recievers)
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 5:46 PM
Subject: Supreme Court update...
Dear All,
The process has started in the Supreme court of India.
Yesterday, Prashant Kumar brought the petition up in the Supreme Court as a “special mention case”, which means we want the matter to be decided urgently and immediately.
Although we fully know that this is not possible, it was meant as a strategic exercise to “let the SC know about this petition” and initiate a formal process.
The petition was heard briefly by a three member bench of the Supreme court, which comprised of two senior judges, Justice SP Barucha and Justice BN Agarwal, and another judge.
Kamini Jaiswal, a leading Senior attorney of the Supreme court, and known to be a firebrand lady in prominent legal circles, who takes up high profile common causes, appeared for me to present arguments before the bench.
Kamini Jaiswal has an intense dislike of Sai Baba and all that he has been doing, she has informed me that she will launch a no holds barred scathing attack on the Sai Baba/politicians nexus when the case is heard in detail.
The Justices had a few questions at the preliminary hearing yesterday. Justice Barucha wanted to know why this matter was being presented for special mention, which is a high urgency category.
Kamini Jaiswal opened arguments by saying that the CBI has had the complaint for nearly 6 weeks, and as still nothing had been done, she contends that this is a special mention matter.
She also submitted that as the matter was one involving a public figure , there should be immediate resolution.
From what was told to me over the phone by Prashant Kumar, the exchanges went somewhat this way :
***********************************************
Justice Barucha : Can the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner please explain why this matter is being referred to the Special mention sitting ?
Kamini Jaiswal : Your Lordship will note that the complaint to the CBI had been made by the petitioner on March 12th. As the CBI has not done anything till now, and six weeks having elapsed, petitioner contends that there is a case for urgency.
Justice Barucha : It appears to this court that the matter would have to be examined in depth before any ruling can be made , but it is not clear why the same purpose cannot be achieved if this court agrees to hear the matter on a later date, and not under special mention.
Kamini Jaiswal : Is your Lordship suggesting that the admission hearing be posted to a future date , but not under special mention ?
Justice Barucha : Yes, what about May 8th ?
Kamini Jaiswal : That should be fine, My Lord.
Justice Agarwal : Would learned Senior counsel please say why a future date would affect the eventual process if the petitioner’s prayer is granted, which could be resolved by a special mention today ?
Kamini Jaiswal : Your Lordship is aware that the petitioner is praying for a CBI investigation into all the activities of respondent # 3. As petitioner is asking for investigation, it is our contention that the earllier, the better. Further, your Lordship is no doubt aware of the fact that respondent number 3 has a lot of powerful “divine followers”, who may impact the investigation, if it is delayed.
Justice Agarwal : Is learned senior counsel for the petitioner contending that delay could result in tampering with investigative process by people in power ?
Kamini Jaiswal : Yes, My Lord. We further contend that in view of the fact that respondent number 3 has a lot of “divine followers” who could be directly impacted by such direction to the CBI to investigate by this court, such a tampering could well take place.Even Presidents and Prime Ministers are “divine followers” of respondent 3
Justice Barucha : Learned Senior counsel need not have any such apprehensions , as this court has noted the nature of this case, and of course, will ensure that no such tampering is done that may adversely affect the petitioner’s prayers, if this court so chooses to issue such directions. Further, this matter requires serious and deep analysis, and also the date being suggested is only a few days away, May 8th was indicated to be fine , by Senior counsel.
Kamini Jaiswal : Yes, My Lord, this court’s assurance is noted with gratitude, and the point taken.
Justice Agarwal : I saw the contents of the petition, and I would like to mention to senior counsel that these matters have been going on for several decades at least. When the petitioner is praying for direction to the CBI to investigate matters going on for such a long time, a few days from now is not really going to impact anything in the investigations. It also requires deeper analysis.
Jamini Jaiswal : I agree, my Lord, May 8th is perfectly fine for us.
Justice Barucha : Very well, admission hearing posted for May 8th by this court.
Kamini Jaiswal : Petitioner and counsel thank your Lordships.
***********************************************
Kamini Jaiswal: She is a senior advocate in Supreme Court and renowned for taking up litigations for public interest.
Kamini Jaiswal stated in open court that she fears that investigation could be tampered with, and made the judges give an assurance that this will not happen. She has also openly stated in court that even former and present Prime ministers , former president etc are all “divine followers” , who may impact the investigations, and made the Judges ask specific questions about whether she feared interference. She has also managed to “elicit” a comment from Justice Agarwal where he says “these things have been going on for decades”
Advani told me that he will be studying the matter in detail today and tomorrow. He has asked me to call him tomorrow for further discussions.
Hari.
Before the May 8 hearing, Justice Anand (who is a Sai Baba devotee) dismissed Judge Agarwal from the case and appointed his own surrogate Judge Lahoti. Corruption of this sort tends to be ‘invisible’. Lahoti then dismissed the case, he repeatedly told the lawyers to take it to the Andhra High Court... despite the legally valid objections of Kamini Jaiswal. The following transcript of the proceedings shows clearly the corrupting influence of Sai Baba’s powerful interests on and within the Supreme Court of India.
The following transcript is from an e-mail circulated by Hari Sampath at the time to numerous recipients, including Conny Larsson, who has provided this e-mailed transcript.
Kamini Jaiswal : May I proceed with the case introduction ?
Judge Lahoti : Wait....there is a problem with the affidavit of the petitioner, I want it clarified.
Kamini : There is absolutely nothing wrong, the affidavit is perfectly fine.
Judge Lahoti : Why is the affidavit dated April 5th 2001 and you are coming up only now with the petition , in May ?
Kamini : The affidavit was signed by the petitioner and had to be mailed, along with his petition. The petition had to be mailed to him first so that he could sign it.
Judge Lahoti : How can that take more than a month ? This is an old affidavit , then.
Kamini : If you notice the address of the petitioner, he is in the United States, and mail takes a few days to reach there and then back here to India. We filed the petition more than 10 days back, citing reasons for urgent mention, and according to the court order, the case was posted for today. That is why we are here now.
Judge Lahoti : Well...it seems that the petitioner is in USA,it is my mistake. Anyway there are other reasons I want to clarify this petition. Why are you
approaching the Supreme court ? We don’t want to hear this petition, please go to the High court in Andhra Pradesh.
Kamini : The reasons are clearly mentioned in the petition, and we are filing the petition under Article 32 of the constitution, which gives us the right to come to the Supreme court.
Judge Patnaik (second judge) : Why was the petition not filed in the Andhra High court under Article 226 ? Go to the High court.
Kamini : That is what I am coming to, Article 32 and Article 226, both grant the same rights in the Supreme court and High court respectively.....either option can be pursued. If I may proceed with my argument, I will explain why...
Judge Lahoti : No... go to the High court...
Kamini : Can I at least have a hearing ?
Judge Patnaik : ok.. go on...
(Kamini begins her arguments, and starts detailing all the media reports about Sai Baba, the statements of sexual molestation, etc..... when she reaches the point about UNESCO.... she is interrupted)
Judge Patnaik : This court doesn’t want to hear this petition, go to the Andhra
High court.
Kamini : But I have not even come to the point explaining why we choose to file under Article 32 in Supreme court...
Judge Lahoti : You can do the same under Article 226 in Andhra Court...
Kamini : But that exactly is what I was going to say, about why I cannot do that there, can I please continue ?
Judge Patnaik : Why are you here, why don’t you go to Andhra ?
Kamini : It is clearly stated in the petition, and I am coming to that...
Judge Lahoti : what grounds ?
Kamini : The respondent Sai Baba has a 60,000 million rupee empire in Andhra Pradesh, with total control over the entire state government... how can we go there ? There are also lot of other political influences ...
Judge Patnaik : No, we are not going to allow this petition here, go to the Andhra High court..
Kamini : Bt if this was the issue, we could have been informed 10 days back, we were asked to come today...
Judge Patnaik : We are going to dismiss the petition.
Kamini : On what grounds ?
Judge Lahoti : We do not have to cite any reason for dismissing it.
Kamini : Can you at least give a ruling “with liberty to go to Andhra High court” ?
Judge Patnaik : No I am not going to do that.
Kamini : But that is what you were saying all along , if you want us to go to the
Andhra High court, and if that is the reason you are not hearing this petition,
can you please put it in writing ? We can then take it to the Andhra High court .
Judge Patnaik : No , I just asked you why you are here, and said that you should be in the Andhra High court. I am not going to include that in the ruling.
Kamini : Can we at least withdraw the petition from this court, and approach the Andhra High court ?
Judge Lahoti : you could approach the Andhra High court if you want to, but we are going to call this petition “dismissed”, and not allow you to withdraw it.
Judge Patnaik : Petition dismissed, no reasons are given by this court. That is
the ruling.
Important observations about Hari Sampth’s emails:
- Hari Sampath divulged that he was not in India during the hearing of the writ petition. He was being given updates by phone. Even Kamini Jaiswal and the Judge acknowledged Hari Sampath was in the USA.
- No scans to the transcripts were provided. The reason why no scans to the transcripts were provided was because Hari Sampath admitted that the exchanges between lawyers and Justices were obtained from memory by Prashant Kumar. Therefore, the exchanges between lawyers and Justices are not credible and cannot be guaranteed to be accurate or unbiased.
- Hari Sampath said that Kamini Jaiswal took the case pro bono because she had an “intense dislike of Sai Baba”. Therefore, it is my personal opinion that Kamini Jaiswal undertook the writ petition as a personal vendetta and as a publicity stunt.
- Hari Sampath admitted that although the lawyers knew that is was “not possible” to file a “special mention case”, they did so anyway as a “strategic exercise”.
- Hari Sampath alleged (without any documentation) that the petition was briefly heard by “two senior judges, Justice SP Barucha and Justice BN Agarwal, and another judge”.
- Hari Sampath alleged (without any documentation) that Justice A.S. Anand dismissed Judge B.N. Agrawal from the case and appointed his own surrogate Justice R.C. Lahoti. There is no proof that Justice A.S. Anand or Justice R.C. Lahoti are/were Sai Devotees. It appears Sampath erroneously made these claims in order to justify why his writ petition was dismissed.
- Hari Sampath gave no reason why Justice S.P. Bharucha did not preside over the case. It appears that although Justice Agarwal and Justice Bharucha “heard briefly” the reason for the writ petition (because it was filed as an urgent “special mention case”), it did not mean that they would preside over the subsequent hearing scheduled for May 8th 2001 (which was presided by Justice G.B. Pattanaik and Justice R.C. Lahoti).
- After the Justices indicated that they were going to dismiss the writ petition, Kamini Jaiswal attempted to get the Justices to give a ruling stating “with liberty to go to Andhra High court”. The Justices saw through this ploy and refused to give a ruling stating “with liberty to go to Andhra High court”.
- After realizing the negative impact of having the writ petition dismissed, Kamini Jaiswal attempted to do damage control and requested that the writ petition be withdrawn! Justice Lahoti saw through this ploy as well and refused to allow Kamini Jaiswal to withdraw the petition and made a ruling of “dismissed”.
- Instead of approaching the appropriate forum (the High Court in Andhra Pradesh), the case was dropped by all three lawyers with no further action.
It is
very amusing that
Anti-Sai Activists cite this
failed writ petition as something legitimate in their favor. It is also
very disturbing that
Barry Pittard misrepresented the facts about this writ petition and attempted to argue that it was an
actual court case. It most certainly was
not.
JuST Group’s Shocking Admissions About The Court Dismissal:At
saiguru.net/english/news/petitionnews.htm, the
JuST Seekers Of Truth Group made the following
startling comments:
“ON LACKING POSITIVE RESULTS FROM THE FBI AND CBI and the INDIAN HIGH COURT
All who have been so good as to sign the petition deserve an explanation as to why complaints to the FBI and CBI were not included. The JuST petition working group, in consultation with a dozen of the other original signatories in the JuST group, seriously considered the status of exposé dealings with the FBI and the CBI and found that the initiatives taken towards these bodies by various exposé activists have not so far proven effective. No documentation of replies, nor any public statement concerning Sathya Sai Baba or the accusations against him, have been made available anywhere by either the FBI in the USA or the CBI in India. Mentioning this in the international petition would therefore have been counter-productively unconvincing to any serious actors and agencies in the legal and human rights field. The same applies to the High Court judgement in India, where the charges were rejected as invalid, on the grounds that they were made by a person other than any of the injured parties. Documentation of all this only proves unadvised and incorrect procedure on behalf of the injured parties, which the JuST group considered a bad advertisment for the credibility of the petition to authorities around the world.”
Therefore, the
JuST Group (allegedly composed of 32 ex-devotees)
fully admitted that they
failed to obtain results from the FBI, CBI and the Indian High Court. Need I say more?
Barry Pittard’s Bold-Faced Lies About Justice P.N. Bhagwati:On Barry Pittard’s defamatory Anti-Sai blog, he said the following about
Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Hari Sampath’s writ petition:
“One of India’s top advocates, Kamini Jaiswal, took the case on behalf of Hari Sampath, a noted dissenter from Sai Baba, formerly from the Security wing at Puttaparthi, and she and her assisting Counsel Prashant Kumar and Gaurav Agarwal and their client had to suffer the ignominy of a kangaroo court presided over by the profoundly compromised judges: S.P. Barucha, A.S. Anand, G.B. Patnaik (or G.B. Pattnaik), and R.C. Lahoti. Each one of these went on to become Chief Justice of India. Their CJ at the time was P.N. Bhagwati, a very active member of the Sathya Sai Central Trust, well known for keeping a damper on Sai Baba scandals over many years. As a number of us know personally, when the legal notes for this case are shown in legal quarters, including eminent ones, where mature democratic principles much more cohere, the lawyers are disgusted!”
Although it is
true that Justice P.N. Bhagwati is a Sai Devotee, he
never presided over (or exerted influence over)
any court case pertaining to Sathya Sai Baba because
no actual court cases have involved the Guru.
Barry Pittard is
adept in distorting the truth and is
wholly incapable of conducting even the most remedial of research. For those who care for the truth, Justice P.N. Bhagwati retired from his Chief Justice position on December 20th 1986 (
Ref),
fifteen years before Hari Sampath filed his bogus writ petition. Therefore, Justice P.N. Bhagwati was
not the Chief Justice at the time of Hari Sampath’s writ petition (as erroneously claimed by Pittard). Because Barry Pittard was under the
false notion that Justice P.N. Bhagwati
was the presiding Chief Justice at that time, he trashed, bashed and smeared
all of the Justices as being
“profoundly compromised” and insinuated that they were favorably inclined towards Sai Baba. These are the
typical gutter tactics that Barry Pittard can often be seen employing against his former Guru (after whom he named his own son).
If Barry Pittard
cannot get these
basic facts correct about Justice P.N. Bhagwati (before peddling his disinformation as the truth on his Anti-Sai blog), what does this say about the integrity of his claims about Sai Baba?
Justice P.N. Bhagwati is one of the most distinguished jurists of India since the independence of that country. He presided over the Supreme Court of India as its Chief Justice until his retirement. Under his leadership the Indian Supreme Court has developed comprehensive human rights jurisprudence for India . He, through creative interpretation, expanded the reach and context of human rights embodied in the Constitution. He developed the strategy of Public Interest Litigation with a view to making human rights meaningful for the large masses of poor and disadvantaged people. This is a strategy, which has won admiration in many common law jurisdictions.
He is closely connected with a large number of NGOs, both in India and outside, and has been motivating and inspiring grassroots human rights and development NGOs. Justice Bhagwati is the Chairman of the South Asian Task Force on Judiciary. He is Vice-Chairman of El Taller, an International Human Rights Development Organization located in Tunis . He has organized a number of judicial colloquia in different parts of the Commonwealth on "Domestic Application of International Human Rights norms" for judges in the Commonwealth. He has also promoted and participated in numerous workshops of lawyers and judges on the subject of human rights organized by NGOs and was Chairman of the World Congress on Human Rights held in New Delhi in December 1990.
He has been a member of the Committee of Experts of the ILO for over 15 years. For over 6 years he was the Vice-Chairman of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, and he is now elected as the Chairman. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has taken him as Regional Adviser for the Asia Pacific Region. He has also carried out several missions for the United Nations Centre for Human Rights, the Commonwealth Secretariat, and the International Commission of Jurists. His services have been utilized by several countries, including Mongolia , Cambodia , Nepal , Ethiopia , and South Africa in framing their Constitutions and particularly the chapters on human rights. He was a member of the Goldstone Commission of inquiry in South Africa . He was also involved in finalizing the draft manual for training of judges in human rights prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Justice Bhagwati has been particularly active in the area of women's human rights. He has been the moderator and the main resource person for at least three judicial workshops of women judges for domestic application of international human rights norms in the jurisprudence of women's human rights, one in Victoria Falls for African judges, the other in Hong Kong for Asia Pacific judges and the third in Guyana for Caribbean judges. He presided over the Peoples Tribunal for Violence against Women at the Vienna Human Rights congress. This Tribunal was organized by International Women NGOs.
He has been responsible for a considerable amount of work in the field of human rights and development among tribals and particularly tribal women in South and East India and has provided leadership to the NGO, AWARE, in making 6,000 villages self-reliant. Two large complexes in rural areas have been named after him. He is a household name amongst the poor and underprivileged sectors of Indian society.
Justice P.N. Bhagwati was responsible for making a large number of innovations with a view to providing access to justice to the poor and disadvantaged. He enlarged the doctrine of locus standi before the Supreme Court and the High Courts for vindicating the individual and collective rights of those who were denied access to justice on account of poverty or social or economic disability.
He at the same time worked successfully to build up an elaborate legal aid programme. He is widely regarded as the originator of India 's legal aid programme, including setting up of legal aid camps in rural areas, working with NGOs, establishing legal aid clinics etc.
Numerous documentaries have been made on him and his work including one where he is one of six outstanding Indians on whose life the Indian TV has done a profile. He has been the most visible member of India 's Judiciary since independence. His reputation and his impact, through his judicial and legal aid work, is so enormous that the public response has been quite phenomenal, e.g., a village where the tribal people benefited from his judgement, renamed the village after him calling it BHAGWATI PURAM.
He has championed the cause of workers and labourers. His thought provoking judgements on bonded and unorganized labour and child labour have resulted in various legislations and government schemes in improving their social and economic conditions. He is also involved in the programme of sustainable development and has been responsible for developing poverty jurisprudence in India.
His services have been availed of by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. He is the Chairman of Eminent Persons Group for Study of questions relating to refugees. He is also Chairman of the Advisory Board of the Centre for Independence of Judges and Lawyers (CIJL) based in Geneva and as such he is associated with many of the activities of the International Commission of Jurists, Geneva.
He has also been a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague for the last several years. He was also a member of the International Mediation Team with Henry Kissinger and Lord Carrington for mediation between Inkatha and ANC before the elections in South Africa.
He is presently Chairman of the Human Rights Committee under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of the United Nations. He is also the Regional Adviser to the High Commissioner for Human Rights for the entire Asia and Pacific Region. He is also a Member of the International Advisory Council of the World Bank for Legal and Judicial Reforms. He is also the Honorary Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
He is Chancellor of the Hyderabad University.
He is also Chancellor of Shr Lal Bahadur Shastri Rashtriya Sanskrit Vidyapeeth.
He is also the Honorary Member of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. (Reference)
This is the type of esteemed and well-respected individual that critic’s casually defame and trivialize to bolster their lamentable case against
Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba.
Information About Relevant Supreme Court Justices- R. C. Lahoti
Lahoti, Ramesh Chandra, B.Com., LL.B—Born on 1-11-1940. Joined the Bar in District Guna in 1960 and enrolled as an Advocate in 1962. In April, 1977, recruited directly from the Bar to the State Higher Judicial Service and was appointed as a District & Sessions Judge. After functioning as a District & Sessions Judge for a year, he resigned in May 1978 and reverted to the Bar for practice mainly in the High Court. Appointed Additional Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 3.5.1988 and made permanent Judge on 4.8.1989. Transferred to Delhi High Court on 7.2.94. Appointed as a Judge of Supreme Court of India on 9.12.1998. Appointed as Chief Justice of Supreme Court Of India on 01-06-2004 (Forenoon). Due to retire on 1.11.2005.
(Reference)
- G. B. Pattanaik
Pattanaik, Gopal Ballav, B.Sc., LL.B.—Born on 19th December, 1937, Enrolled Advocate on 28th February, 1962. Practised in Civil, Criminal, Constitutional and company cases in Orissa High Court. Appeared in some cases in Supreme Court. Appointed Standing Counsel for State Government from 1st March, 1971, Additional Government Advocate from 19th July, 1974 and worked as Government Advocate for more than four years. Appointed Judge, Orissa High Court from 1st June 1983. Appointed as Chief Justice of Patna High Court on 19-5-95. Appointed as Judge of the Supreme Court of India on 11.9.95. Retired on 19-12-2002 (F/N).
(Reference)
- Dr. Justice Adarsh Sein Anand
Date of Birth : 1.11.1936 Place of Birth: Jammu (J & K State)
Qualifications : Received early education from Model Academy at Jammu; Graduated from Jammu and Kashmir University in 1958; L.L.B. with First Class and Diploma in Labour Laws 1960) from Lucknow University; Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Laws (Constitutional Law of the Commonwealth) from London University in 1963.
Called to the Bar from the Hon’ble Society of Inner Temple, London in 1964. Practiced Law in Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh and built up a lucrative practice.
At the age of 38 years and six months, appointed as Additional Judge of Jammu & Kashmir High court on 26.5.1975 and confirmed as a permanent Judge of the same Court in February, 1976. Appointed as Acting Chief Justice of Jammu & Kashmir High Court on 26.5.1984, and Chief Justice of the same High Court on 11.5.1985. Transferred as the Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Madras with effect from 1.11.1989. Elevated to the Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in November, 1991.
Headed various Commissions of Enquiry and Investigative Commissions, as Judge & Chief Justice of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir. Was a Member of the High Court Arrears Committee, appointed by the Government of India in 1989.
He has been a part-time Lecturer at the Punjab University, Chandigarh, Member of Jammu University Council and the Faculty of Laws, Jammu University as well as a Member of the Board of Studies, Faculty of Laws, Kashmir University. He was a Member of the Governing Body of Islamia College, Srinagar and is Member of the Board of Studies, Law Faculty, Jammu University.
Participated in various National and International Conferences notable among them being the first Appellate Judges Conference at Manila (Philippines) in 1977; Appellate Judges Conferences at new Delhi in 1984, the Law Asia Conference in 1984 and 1986 and the SAARC Law Conference at New Delhi in 1994; 2nd Worldwide Common Law Judiciary Conference at Washington in 1997; SAARC Chief Justices’ Conference at Colombo, Sri Lanka in October, 1998; Third Worldwide Common Law Judiciary Conference at Edinburgh (Scotland) from July 4-9, 1999.
Is Author of the book titled “The Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir - Its Development & Comments”. The 3rd revised edition was published in 1998.
Has been unanimously elected as President of the International Institute of Human Rights Society (Retd.) in 1996.
Awarded the Degree of LL.D. (Honoris Causa) at the special Convocation held by Lucknow University on 14th March, 1996.
Awarded the Fellowship of the University College, London, on 19th May, 1997.
Patron-in-Chief of National Legal Services Authority (India) with effect from 10th October, 1998.
Unanimously elected as Hony. Bencher of the Hon’ble Society of Inner Temple, London - 1998.
Appointed as Chief Justice of India on 10th October, 1998.
Awarded Degree of Doctor of Letters (Honoris Causa) at the 9th Convocation held at Jammu University on March 20, 1999.
Retired on 01.11.2001(F/N).
(Reference)
- S. P. Bharucha
Bharucha, Sam Piroj, B.Sc., LL.B.—Born on 6th May, 1937. Enrolled as an Advocate of the Bombay High Court on 28th July, 1960. Practised mainly on the Original side of the Bombay High Court. Also appeared in the Supreme Court. Appointed Additional Judge, Bombay High Court from 19th September, 1977 and as permanent Judge on 3rd April, 1978. Appointed as Chief Justice, Karnataka High Court from 1-11-91. Appointed Judge of Supreme Court of lndia on 1-7-92.Appointed as Chief Justice of India on 01.11.2001(F/N). Due to retire on 6-5-2002.
(Reference)
- B.N. Agrawal
Bishwa Nath Agrawal, B.A., B.L. - was born on 15-10-1944.
Enrolled as an Advocate in January, 1966. Practised mostly in Civil and Constitutional cases in the High Court at Patna. Appointed as Judge of the Patna High Court on 17-11-1986. Appointed as Chief Justice of Orissa High Court on 18-11-1999.
Appointed as Judge, Supreme Court of India on 19th October, 2000.
Due to retire on 15-10-2009(F.N).
(Reference)
To Date: None of these current/former Supreme Court Justices have been shown to have
any ties with
Sathya Sai Baba or the Sai Organization despite the paranoid, conspiratorial and tabloid-like assertions from
Anti-Sai Critics.
Other Alleged Court Cases DiscussedAlaya Rahm’s Failed And Self-Dismissed Lawsuit:-
Alaya Rahm Self-Dismissed His Own Lawsuit Against The SSB Society-
A Scathing Response To Critics About Alaya Rahm’s Failed Lawsuit-
The Rahm Family - Allegations ExaminedBasava Premanand, the Gold-Control-Act & His Failed Writ Petition:India’s Gold Control Act of 1962 prohibited citizens of India from holding pure gold bars and coins. The old holdings in pure gold had to be compulsorily converted into jewellery that had to be declared. Only licensed dealers were allowed to deal in pure gold bars and coins. The Gold Control Act was abolished in 1990.
Basava Premanand (an Indian rationalist and critic of Sathya Sai Baba from 1968) attempted to file a writ petition against the Guru for materializing gold jewelry and other gold items, claiming that Sai Baba was violating the Gold Control Act for
“manufacturing” gold. Of course, this claim is utterly absurd and Premanand’s writ petition was promptly
dismissed. In order for Premanand to have had a valid case, he would have needed to:
- Prove that Sathya Sai Baba truly “materialized” gold objects. Since Premanand contends that Sathya Sai Baba is a fraud and palms his alleged “materializations”, he would have had to change his rationalistic beliefs and accept that the Guru actually “materialized” gold items.
- Provide eyewitnesses and/or documentation showing Sathya Sai Baba “materializing” gold items.
- Provide expert testimony that the “materialized” gold items were indeed made of gold.
- Explain how gold “materializations” are associated with the mining of gold in India.
- Explain how gold jewelry violated the Gold Control Act when it specifically prevented citizens in India from possessing gold bars and gold coins (not gold jewelry).
Basava Premanand listed 89 objects he alleged were made of gold (that he cited from Sai-related books) that were materialized by Sathya Sai Baba from 1968 - 1978. Of course, Premanand did
not have access to any of those 89 objects and thereby could not
prove they were made of gold. Hence the complete
futility of his arguments.
It is important to point out that
all of the information pertaining to Basava Premanand’s
failed writ petition
must be obtained
solely through him (B. Premanand, Satya Sai Baba and the Gold Control Act. Published by INDIAN CSICOP, Podanur 1986). No scans or copies to the writ petition or transcipts have been made public. Therefore, one must rely on an obviously biased publication from Premanand and believe his selective and self-serving quotes that he alleged were said by
Judge Y.V. Anjaneyulu.
It is
true that Judge Y.V. Anjaneyulu is a
well known member of the Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust, Prasanthi Nilayam. It is also
true that Judge Y.V. Anjaneyulu specialized in affairs dealing with the Gold Control Act (
Ref). It is
very suspicious that Basava Premanand filed his writ petition with a judge he
knew was a Sai Devotee. It certainly appears that Premanand filed his
absurd and
ridiculous writ petition dealing with the Gold Control Act in order to trap Judge Y.V. Anjaneyulu and then boast that all the Judges in India are somehow Sai Devotees and biased.
Even Justice R Ramakrishnam Raju said about Premanand (in yet
another one of his
failed petitions):
“Further, the allegation that if the investigation is not handed over to the C.B.I., the State Police against whom allegations are made, would not arrest the accused Police Officers is not correct. Even the Police Officers against whom allegations are made, have also been arrested. The petitioner has not come with clean, hands. The petitioner; earlier filed a writ petition unsuccessfully alleging that the Head of the Ashram had violated the provisions of the Gold Control Act. It is finally contended that this Court has no jurisdiction to direct investigation by C.B.I.”
For the record, Justice R.R. Raju is
not a known Sai Devotee or known associate of the Sathya Sai Organization.
Therefore, we have yet
another example of a
failed writ petition that was
not an actual court case. Sathya Sai Baba did
not have lawyers present to defend him and the writ petition was
dismissed (and rightly so). Again, it is also
very disturbing that
Barry Pittard misrepresented the facts about this writ petition and attempted to argue that it was an
actual court case. It most certainly was
not.
1999 Writ Petition About Alleged Kidney Transplant Malpractice:Barry Pittard, attempting to bolster his lamentable position that court cases have been filed against Sathya Sai Baba by alleged victims, cited the
“stolen kidney” writ petition (whose details were taken
exclusively from an Indian newspaper). First of all, the alleged writ petition was
not filed against Sathya Sai Baba or the Sai Organization. It was allegedly filed against the
doctors at the Super Speciality Hospital.
To Date: No one has been able to produce a scan or copy of the alleged
“stolen kidney” writ petition. The
only “evidence” cited is the following Deccan Chronicle newspaper article:
Deccan Chronicle 5.11.99: “Hyderabad Nov 4: Justice G Raghu Ram of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on Thursday admitted a writ petition seeking initiation of criminal prosecution against the doctors of the Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Medical Sciences, Puttaparthi in Anantapur district alleging malpractices regarding the transplantation of kidney.
The writ petition has been filed by Balaji Triambak Rao Karavande, who has alleged that the doctors of the institute removed a kidney from his body and did not transplant the same to his father...
After he offered to donate one of his kidneys to save his father’s life, the doctors at the institute operated on him on April 25 1994 and told him that the same would be transplanted to his father.
BT Karavande said that his father died in December 1995 and to his shock the doctors claimed that his father’s body did not show signs of a new transplanted kidney. He informed the court that after this revelation, he lodged a complaint with the Latur [Maharashtra] police, who exumed the body, conducted a post-mortem, and confirmed that no kidney transplant has taken place.
He alleged that the police at Puttaparthi did not register the complaint and that he was thrown out of the hospital when he confronted the doctors with the relevant documents. He sought compensation of Rs 20 lakh and direction to the police to register a case and punish the guilty who played fraud upon him.”
Mr Trimakababa Rao was the man who was supposed to have a kidney transplant. Mr Balaji (his son) donated his kidney to his father. After the transplant, the kidney was declared
“non-functional, due to vascular occulation” (which means the kidney should have been removed). Consequently, Mr. Balaji’s sister offered her kidney. However, the father had to be put on dialysis. Mr. Balaji heard of a
“kidney racket” in Bangalore, became suspicious and had his father undergo a sonogram on August 5th 1995 and a CT scan on August 7th 1995. Both scans allegedly showed that the father had both of his diseased kidneys. Mr. Balaji (after finding out that his father did
not have a kidney transplant) did absolutely
nothing about it!
After his father died in 1997 (2 years after finding out that the kidney transplant did
not occur), Mr. Balaji made a complaint with the police and had his father’s body exhumed, which allegedly confirmed no kidney transplant was performed. What happened to the sonogram and CT scan? Why did Mr. Balaji wait for his father to die before he made a complaint 2 years
after discovering the alleged malpractice?
The newspaper clipping from the Deccan Herald contributed to the confusion surrounding the facts regarding the
“stolen kidney”. The writ petition was allegedly filed in 1999, two years
after his father died and four years
after the alleged kidney malpractice. Also, despite getting a sonogram and CT scan in 1995, Mr. Balaji did
nothing and apparently did not even submit this as key evidence. He waited 2 years until
after his father died. In the writ petition, Mr. Balaji made
no mention to either the sonogram and CT scans made in 1995.
About this 1999 newspaper article, Barry Pittard said
“My reader may be curious (or could simply guess) as to the outcome of the following”.
To Date: Neither Barry Pittard or any other person can provide
verifiable documentation to support the claim that the doctors at the Super Speciality Hospital were found guilty of
any wrong doing. Barry Pittard may want others to
“guess” about the outcome of this case (because he cannot provide any documentation to back-up his suspicions against the doctors at the Super Speciality Hospital), but the fact of the matter remains that Mr. Pittard does
not know the outcome of this case. These are
facts and far be it for Barry Pittard to
“guess” and ask his readers to
“guess” about the outcome of an alleged writ petition whose details have not been mentioned or published by anyone in the past
seven years.
Excuses, Excuses, ExcusesExcuses Given For The Failure To File A Court Case Against Sathya Sai Baba:Robert Priddy,
Barry Pittard,
Conny Larsson and other
Anti-Sai Activists can often be seen giving several reasons why Sathya Sai Baba has
never (ever) had a court case filed against him (first-hand) by
any alleged victim in a court of law
in India. These excuses are:
Excuse One: Many alleged victims are afraid to speak out.My Response: Although there is
no proof or evidence that there are
“many” victims, the
six non-anonymous and alleged victims who
have come forward were
not “afraid to speak out” about their alleged abuse. To the contrary, several of these alleged victims purchased domains and created webpages talking about their alleged abuse, contributed to public media exposés relating to their alleged abuse and posted their alleged abuse stories on
public domain forums. As a matter of fact,
Said Afshin Khorramshahgol not only created his own Anti-Sai domain, he publicly spammed his alleged abuse story on several public forums
thousands of times. Therefore, none of these
six non-anonymous and alleged victims were
“afraid to speak out”.
Why didn’t
any of them file a basic police complaint against Sai Baba in India for alleged sexual improprieties?
Why didn’t
any of them file a court case in India against Sathya Sai Baba?
Why did
all of them
reject the offer of
free “
world-class legal resources” from
Barry Pittard?
Excuse Two: It often takes years or decades before survivors can come to terms with what happened to them.My Response: (See answer to Excuse One) The
six non-anonymous and alleged victims had obviously
“come to terms” with what happened to them because they openly talked about their alleged abuse, contributed to public media exposés relating to their alleged abuse and posted their alleged abuse stories on
public domain forums.
Excuse Three: Even the few alleged victims who are ready to face the public can often be in no position to litigate because of lack of funds, time, energy, or family or close friends to support them in an intelligent and genuine manner.My Response: As stated before,
all six non-anonymous and alleged victims
were ready to
“face the public” and
did so. They revealed their real names along with their alleged abuse stories. Barry Pittard offered alleged victims
free “world-class legal resources” (
Ref) and
none of the alleged victims accepted his offer. Why not? Critics have also boasted that they have deep pockets to assist alleged victims.
Conny Larsson is a self-professed multi-millionaire who has thrown
a lot of money at
“exposing” Sai Baba (as well as making money by writing an Anti-Sai book). Many of the six non-anonymous and alleged victims expended vast amounts of personal energy and time against
Sathya Sai Baba through various types of media, online webpages and internet forums. One is left to wonder
why these alleged victims worked so hard at exposing Sai Baba on the internet and through various media, yet
adamantly refuse to file (first-hand) a
basic police complaint or court case against Sai Baba in India. Needless to say, a court case in India would readily accomplish their objectives and generate immense publicity to their cause.
Excuse Four: Litigation is always an uncertain, costly and often extremely drawn-out process, especially in sex abuse cases where the success rate is still far lower than in most other common crimes.My Response: Critics of Sathya Sai Baba can often be seen
boasting that they are attempting to bring Sathya Sai Baba to
“justice” although they have
failed to initiate any criminal proceedings against him in India.
Former Followers are attempting to bring Sai Baba to
“justice” by waging
vicious smear and hate campaigns on the internet against him. That is their modus operandi. Critics can also be seen
boasting that they have highly credible accounts, weighty documentation, irrefutable facts, overwhelming evidence, thorough documentation, first-hand witnesses, etc. Despite all of these inflated claims, critics
purposely avoid filing a lawsuit against Sai Baba in India despite the fact that it would generate immense publicity to their cause (especially by garrulous Indian rationalists and atheists). If they were to lose because a judge dismissed their case,
then they could say that the Justices are protecting Sai Baba and that their cases were rejected on questionable grounds. However, critics put the cart before the horse and claim that they cannot get justice because the Supreme Court Of India and Judges are all Sai Devotees (a blatant and bold-faced
untruth that they cannot back up with verifiable information). It is also amusing to point out that
Robert Priddy said, and I quote:
“Supposed ‘religious figures’ get convicted and imprisoned in Indian courts for sex offences and murder. Their devotees, however, invariably insist that their gurus could not possibly be guilty and the trials must have been unfair, fixed, or due to political repression and so on. Unfair High Court convictions probably do occur, but hardly in more than a few instances.”
If this is true,
why have critics and alleged victims
refused to file a court case against Sathya Sai Baba in India? The truth of the matter is that alleged victims will
never file a court case against Sai Baba in India. With the passage of time
Anti-Sai Activist’s numerous defamations, libels, bold-faced lies, misrepresentations and deception have compromised
all of their alleged credibility and they would be made an international mockery in a court of law in India and in Indian newspapers. Critic’s dare
not jeopardize their carefully protected and packaged smear and hate campaigns by opening themselves up to critical cross examination in a court of law.
Excuse Five: Sathya Sai Baba enjoys powerful protection from the Indian Government, judiciary, the Supreme Court Of India and other power echelons from any sort of prosecution.My Response: (See answer to Excuse Four) Since
no alleged victim has
even tried (first-hand) to file a court case against Sathya Sai Baba in India, there is
no proof
whatsoever that Sathya Sai Baba
might be protected by the Indian Government, judiciary, the Supreme Court Of India and other power echelons from any sort of prosecution. Once again, critics are putting the cart before the horse and are claiming that Sai Baba is being protected by Justices although they have
not even attempted to file a court case against him. File a court case
first and if Sathya Sai Baba is protected by the Indian Government, judiciary, the Supreme Court Of India or other power echelons,
then make that claim. To make this claim
a priori is indicative of excuse-making, paranoia and deflection. Critics believe that the Supreme Court Of India is protecting Sathya Sai Baba because they
rightly dismissed Hari Sampath’s writ petition (although he was
not a victim and was
not even present in India when the writ petition was heard by the Justices).
Excuse Six: Many alleged victims have been raised from birth as Sai Devotees and duress would be frightening to them because they are mere boys in their teens.My Response: This excuse can be found in critic’s response to
Alaya Rahm’s Failed And Self-Dismissed Lawsuit Against The SSB Society (my full response can be found
here). According to
Barry Pittard,
“well over a hundred sworn affidavits alleging sexual molestation of young males has been lodged with FBI” (
Ref). This erroneous and unsupported claim has
only been made by Barry Pittard (
no other critic has made it). Therefore, these alleged
“well over a hundred” affiants were
not afraid of
“duress” because they were
“mere boys in their teens”. Allegedly, these
“well over a hundred” affiants approached the FBI and filed affidavits with the FBI,
fully prepared to participate in a court case against Sathya Sai Baba (why file affidavits otherwise?). However, along came
Alaya Rahm’s Lawsuit Against The Sathya Sai Baba Society and
not even one affidavit was submitted on Alaya Rahm’s behalf and
not even one affiant or alleged victim was identitifed to the court on Alaya Rahm’s behalf (facts
fully supported with court records). In
“Response To Form Interrogatories” (Form Interrogatory No. 12.6, Set One), Alaya Rahm mentioned his complaint that was filed with the FBI in Chicago by Hari Sampath. Therefore, although Alaya Rahm’s lawyer was
fully aware of the FBI complaint, he was
totally unaware of the alleged
“well over a hundred” other affiants who had allegedly filed affidavits with the FBI (which would have all but guaranteed a victory for Alaya Rahm). And to put the final nail in the coffin, the JuST Group (allegedly composed of 32 ex-devotees) said:
“No documentation of replies, nor any public statement concerning Sathya Sai Baba or the accusations against him, have been made available anywhere by either the FBI in the USA or the CBI in India. Mentioning this in the international petition would therefore have been counter-productively unconvincing to any serious actors and agencies in the legal and human rights field.”
Therefore, the
“well over a hundred sworn affidavits” and the
“boys in their teens” claims are totally
without merit and no one can provide a scintilla of verifiable evidence to the contrary.
ReferenceLabels: court cases, sai baba, sai controversy, sathya sai baba, Supreme Court Of India
