Sasikala given preferential treatment in prison: Inquiry report
Bengaluru, Jan 20: Ousted AIADMK leader V.K Sasikala was given special treatment in a prison here, where she is serving imprisonment in a corruption case, according to the report by an inquiry committee that went into allegations by a senior police official, an RTI query has revealed.
The 295-page report confirmed then DIG (Prisons) D Roopa's claims in July 2017 that Sasikala was given preferential treatment and a separate kitchen functioned for her at the Parappana Agrahara Central Jail Here, RTI activist Narasimha Murthy said.
"I have accessed the 295 pages report through an RTI query. The report confirms that Sasikala was given special treatment in the jail," he said.
The reply was furnished by M R Shobha, Public Relations Officer of the Home Department.
The then Siddaramaiah government had ordered an inquiry by retired IAS officer Vinay Kumar to probe the allegations made by Roopa after the issue snowballed.
In a report submitted on July 12 to DGP (Prisons) H N Satyanarayana Rao, Roopa had said there was "a talk" that Rs two crore had exchanged hands to give preferential treatment for Sasikala and there were allegations against him also, charge rejected by him.
The issue had caused embarrassment to the then Congress government led by Siddaramaiah which ordered the transfer of Roopa and Rao after both sparred in public.
Sasikala is lodged at Parappana Agrahara central prison here ever since her conviction by the Supreme Court in February, 2017 in the disproportionate assets case along with her two relatives V N Sudhakaran and Elavarasi, all serving a 4-year jail term.
Kumar had submitted his report to the government on November 17, 2017 but its contents were not made public.
The report, a copy of which is available with PTI, said Sasikala, close aide of late Tamil Nadu chief minister Jayalalithaa, was allowed to wear her personal clothes and cook. A pressure cooker and spices were found in her prison cell.
It also said there was separate visitors' room for her and the corridor in the jail was barricaded for her.
Sasikala was provided five cells, despite no threat to her life as per intelligence reports, the report said.
The inquiry committee report said Sasikala enjoyed free movement within the prison which was corroborated by video clips. One of the videos showed Sasikala and co-convict Elavarasi going out of the female barrack with a bag in hand, it said.
The videos were submitted to the commission by Roopa along with other CCTV footage from inside the prison.
The report also found that, as per the CCTV footage, Sasikala met with a person in white shirt and white pants for over four hours on June 11, 2017.
According to the prison register, the person is A.
Ashokan, her advocate. However, while it was mentioned in the register that she met with him for only 45 minutes the maximum time that a prisoner can spend with a visitor, the CCTV evidence that showed she met him for several hours.
The Daily Report (submitted by the chief superintendent of the prison for July 11, 2017) also showed that Elavarasi on that day had seven visitors, but the total time spent by her was recorded as 45 minutes from 2 pm.
"This can only be explained as deliberate misreporting on the part of the concerned prison officials to escape falling within the prohibition of Rule 601 of the Karnataka Prison Manual 1978. In other words, it is a case of falsification of records, the report noted.
It also found two other similar manipulation of visitor timings.
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.
Bhojshala complex registered as 'mosque' in old revenue records: Muslim side to MP HC
Indore (PTI): The disputed Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque complex has historically been registered as a 'mosque' in revenue records and available sources don't clearly mention any Saraswati temple established by then-king Raja Bhoj, the Muslim side has told the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The Hindu community considers Bhojshala a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, while the Muslim side calls the 11th-century monument Kamal Maula Mosque. The disputed complex located in Dhar district is protected by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
During the hearing before the HC's Indore bench of Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi on Wednesday, Qazi Moinuddin questioned two PILs filed as intervenors in the Bhojshala case by an organisation named Hindu Front for Justice, one Kuldeep Tiwari and another individual.
Moinuddin claims to be a descendant of Sufi saint Maulana Kamaluddin Chishti and the 'Sajjadanashin' (spiritual head, guru, or successor of a Sufi shrine, khanqah, or religious site).
The PILs state that Bhojshala is actually a Saraswati temple and only Hindus should be granted the right to worship at the disputed complex.
Moinuddin's lawyer, Noor Ahmed Sheikh, claimed in the court that his client's ancestors, who are descendants of Maulana Kamaluddin Chishti, have historically held titles to the complex, and the site was also recorded as a "mosque" in government revenue records.
He contended that those associated with the management of the Kamal Maula Mosque, located within the complex, have been in "continuous and peaceful occupation" of the site for a long time.
Citing Muslim law, Sheikh argued that in the case of religious property, particularly a mosque or its related properties, officials such as the Sajjadanashin and Mutawalli (person entrusted with management, maintenance, and administration of a Waqf), and their descendants, not only have the right to intervene, but also have the right to manage and use such a structure.
Citing provisions of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act 1904, the Muslim side's lawyer said the term "in-charge of the property" is used in this law, which makes it clear that the person or party who has been in charge of a property for a long time has rights over it.
During the hearing, Touseef Warsi, the lawyer representing the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society of Dhar, claimed that Hindu parties in both PILs had made "misleading representations" regarding historical facts before the high court.
He further claimed that available historical sources do not clearly mention the existence of a Saraswati temple established by Raja Bhoj, the legendary king of the Parmar dynasty who ruled Dhar from 1010 to 1055.
The ASI, a central government agency, has adopted three different positions in the lawsuits filed regarding the Bhojshala dispute, changing its answers from time to time, and this situation raises serious questions about judicial scrutiny of the complex, Warsi submitted.
He raised objections regarding the ASI's process of scientific survey of the Bhojshala complex, carried out on the HC order in 2024, and the method of videography and requested the court to examine these objections.
The hearing in the Bhojshala case will continue on Thursday.
The HC has been regularly hearing four petitions and one writ appeal since April 6, contesting the religious nature of the monument.
