"Tamil Thai Vazhthu" is prayer song, not Anthem: Madras HC
Madurai, Dec 10: The 'Tamil Thai Vaazhthu', an invocation, is only a prayer song and not a National Anthem and hence, there is no need for every one to remain in standing posture when it is rendered, the Madras High Court bench here has ruled.
Justice G R Swaminathan gave the ruling recently while quashing an FIR registered against "Nam Tamilar Katchi" (NTK) functionaries by the Remeswaram police in Ramanathapuram district, in 2018.
The then Tamil Nadu Governor Banwarilal Purohit released a Tamil-Sanskrit dictionary at a function held in Music Academy, Chennai in the presence of the Pontiff of the Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam Sri Vijayendra Saraswathi on January 24, 2018. When the invocation song to Mother Tamil, "Tamil Thai Vaazhthu" was played, the seer remained seated and this triggered considerable outrage and debate.
Kan Ilango, now associated with NTK and then part of "Tamilar Desiya Munnani", and his men entered the branch of the Kanchi Mutt in Rameswaram, shouting slogans, condemning the Shankaracharya. They allegedly entered the Mutt premises wearing footwear.
When the Mutt manager protested, he was criminally intimidated. Hence, a case was registered against them for offences under various sections of the IPC including rioting and criminal intimidation.
Hence, the present criminal original petition from Ilango, challenging the FIR.
Justice Swaminathan noted that Sec. 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 states whoever intentionally prevents the singing of the National Anthem or causes disturbance to any assembly engaged in such singing shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Article 51A(a) of the Constitution mandates it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to respect the National Flag and the National Anthem.
When three school children who were adherents of Jehovah's Witnesses, a Christian denomination, refused to sing the National Anthem, they were expelled from the school, in Kerala. The matter reached the Supreme Court, which struck down the expulsion and directed their re-admission in the school. The Supreme Court had held that the children while refusing to sing had stood up respectfully, the judge said.
It was noted there is no provision of law which obliges anyone to sing the National Anthem. The Supreme Court judges did not think it is disrespectful to the National Anthem if a person who stands up respectfully when the National Anthem is sung, does not join the singing. After a discussion regarding the right to freedom of conscience and freedom to profess, practice and propagate religion the court concluded our tradition teaches tolerance; our philosophy preaches tolerance; our Constitution practices tolerance; let us not dilute it.
Allowing the petition, the Madras HC also pointed out that there is no statutory or executive order requiring the attendees to stand up when Tamil Thai Vazhthu is sung. It was not a National Anthem. But highest reverence and respect ought to be shown to Tamil Thai Vaazhthu. It is true that the members of the audience conventionally stand up whenever Tamil Thai Vaazhthu is sung. But the question is whether this is the only mode in which respect can be shown.
When we celebrate pluralism and diversity, insisting there can be only one way of showing respect, it reeks of hypocrisy. One should not forget that a Sanyasi occupies a special place in the social and cultural life. Emperors and Kings have prostrated before Sanyasis and Fakirs. In the epics whenever a Sanyasi entered the royal court, the King will step down from his throne and pay his respects. On becoming a Sanyasi, the person suffers a civil death. He must be taken to have a re-birth.
A Sanyasi primarily leads a life of piety. When in prayer, he is invariably found in a meditative posture. Since Tamil invocation is a prayer song, a Sanyasi is certainly justified in sitting in a state of meditation. In the instant case, the pontiff is seen sitting in a Dhyana (meditative) posture with his eyes closed. It was his way of expressing his reverence and respect for Mother Tamil, the judge said and also set aside the case pending before the Rameswaram police station.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Actress sexual assault: Court says Prosecution 'miserably' failed to prove conspiracy against Dileep
Kochi (PTI): The prosecution had "miserably" failed to prove the conspiracy charge against Dileep in the sensational 2017 actress sexual assault case, a local court has observed while citing inconsistencies and lack of sufficient evidence against the Malayalam star.
The full judgement of Ernakulam District and Principal Sessions Court Judge Honey M Varghese was released late on Friday, and has revealed the judge also pointing out at unsustainable arguments put forth by the prosecution.
"The prosecution miserably failed to prove the conspiracy between accused No.1 (Pulsar Suni) and accused No.8 (Dileep) in executing the offence against the victim," the court held.
It examined in detail, the prosecution's allegation that Dileep had hired the prime accused to sexually assault the survivor and record visuals, including close-up footage of a gold ring she was wearing, to establish her identity.
On page 1130 of the judgment, under paragraph 703, the court framed the issue as whether the prosecution's contention that NS Sunil (Pulsar Suni) recorded visuals of the gold ring worn by the victim at the time of the occurrence, so as to clearly disclose her identity, was sustainable.
The prosecution contended Dileep and Suni had planned the recording so that the actress' identity would be unmistakable, with the video of the gold ring intended to convince Dileep that the visuals were genuine.
However, the court noted that this contention was not stated in the first charge sheet and was introduced only in the second one.
As part of this claim, a gold ring was seized after the victim produced it before the police.
The court observed that multiple statements of the victim were recorded from February 18, 2017, following the incident, and that she first raised allegations against Dileep only on June 3, 2017.
Even on that day, nothing was mentioned about filming of the ring as claimed by the prosecution, the court said.
The prosecution failed to explain why the victim did not disclose this fact at the earliest available opportunities.
It further noted that although the victim had viewed the sexual assault visuals twice, she did not mention any specific recording of the gold ring on those occasions, which remained unexplained.
The court also examined the approvers' statements.
One approver told the magistrate that Dileep had instructed Pulsar Suni to record the victim's wedding ring.
The court observed that no such wedding ring was available with her at that time.
During the trial, the approver changed his version, the court said.
The Special Public Prosecutor put a leading question to the approver on whether Dileep had instructed the recording of the ring, after which he deposed that the instruction was to record it to prove the victim's identity.
The court observed that the approver changed his account to corroborate the victim's evidence.
When the same question was put to another approver, he repeated the claim during the trial but admitted he had never stated this fact before the investigating officer.
The court noted that the second approver even went to the extent of claiming Dileep had instructed the execution of the crime as the victim's engagement was over.
This showed that the evidence of the second approver regarding the shooting of the ring was untrue, as her engagement had taken place after the crime.
The court further observed that the visuals themselves clearly revealed the victim's identity and that there was no need to capture images of the ring to establish identity.
In paragraph 887, the court examined the alleged motive behind the crime and noted that in the first charge sheet, the prosecution had claimed that accused persons 1 to 6 had kidnapped the victim with the common intention of capturing nude visuals to extort money by threatening to circulate them and there was no mention about Dileep's role in it.
The court also rejected the prosecution's claim that the accused had been planning the assault on Dileep's instructions since 2013, noting that the allegation was not supported by reliable evidence.
It similarly ruled out the claim that Suni attempted to sexually assault the victim in Goa in January 2017, stating that witness statements showed no such misconduct when he served as the driver of the vehicle used by the actress there.
The court also discussed various controversies that followed Dileep's arrest and the evidence relied upon by the prosecution, ultimately finding that the case had not been proved.
Pronouning its verdict on the sensational case on December 8, the court acquitted Dileep and three others.
Later, the court sentenced six accused, including the prime accused Suni, to 20 years' rigorous imprisonment.
The assault on the multilingual actress, after the accused allegedly forced their way into her car and held it under their control for two hours on February 17, 2017, had shocked Kerala.
Pulsar Suni sexually assaulted the actress and video recorded the act with the help of the other convicted persons in the moving car.
