Feb 27, 2018

Nithyananda draws HC’s ire

The Hindu
FEBRUARY 27, 2018

‘Seeking relief from two fora not on’

The Madras High Court on Monday expressed displeasure over self-styled godman Nithyananda having filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, challenging an interim injunction restraining him from entering the Madurai Aadheenam by claiming to be its junior pontiff, despite having filed a vacate injunction application before the High Court.

Justice R. Mahadevan questioned Senior Counsel A. Raghunathan as to how the godman could approach two different fora for seeking similar relief. Stating that he would take up the main writ petition filed against Nithyananda by Madurai-based activist M. Jagathalapradapan for final hearing, the judge directed the Registry to list the matter for hearing on Tuesday.

“Sometimes, godmen will also have to pray to God to come to their rescue. Let’s see what happens tomorrow,” the judge said before adjourning the hearing. During a previous hearing of the case, the judge gave two options to Nithyananda — he was asked to choose whether he wanted to contest the civil suits pending before the Madurai district court or face the writ petition in the High Court.

On Monday, the Senior Counsel informed the court that his client had preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging the injunction granted by the High Court last year, and that the case had been given a diary number.

However, it could not be listed for hearing before an appropriate Bench due to the Holi holidays for the apex court, he added.

Irked by the submission, Mr. Justice Mahadevan said: “Much water has flown in this writ petition after the October 11, 2017 order.Having filed a vacate injunction application before this court, you are not entitled to file another petition elsewhere. You are trying to curtail the court’s proceedings.”

Advance bail

In the meantime, Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira on Monday closed an anticipatory bail application preferred by Nithyananda after recording a submission made on behalf of Salmen city cyber crime cell police that as on date, he was not an accused in a case booked in connection with obscene Facebook posts by an inmate of his Ashram at Bidadi.

The judge, however, directed him to appear before the police for inquiry as and when required. In his petition, Nithyananda had apprehended that there was a possibility of him facing arrest whenever he appeared before the police, in compliance with a notice issued to him under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, requiring his presence before the investigating officer.


No comments: