Opportunistic and unprincipled politics

"Thiru Karunanidhi has created a new Olympic record of sorts in somersaults with his total volte-face on the arrest of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal by the Tamil Nadu police on 11.11.2004, and his statement on the encounter in which the dreaded forest brigand Veerappan was eliminated by the Tamil Nadu police on 18.10.2004.

"Thiru Karunanidhi rushed to warmly congratulate the Government of Tamil Nadu for the fair and impartial action taken in effecting the arrest of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal in connection with the murder of Thiru Sankararaman on 3.9.2004. He also congratulated the Special Task Force of the Tamil Nadu police for its spectacular achievement in eliminating Veerappan in a daring operation on 18.10.2004.

`Statement in Assembly'

"Full facts on the encounter leading to the elimination of Veerappan were immediately furnished to the media by Thiru Vijay Kumar, Chief of the Special Task Force. I had also given a detailed statement on 18.10.2004 followed by a press conference on 19.10.2004 setting out all the facts. On 17.11.2004, I had given a detailed statement on the floor of the Assembly under Rule 110 setting out the complete facts relating to the arrest of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal. Thus, all the details of both the elimination of Veerappan and the arrest of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal are in the public domain. Yet Thiru Karunanidhi is now indulging in an exercise of floating preposterous and unbelievable new theories.

"On 22.11.2004, Thiru Karunanidhi has amazed everyone with a somersault of such proportions that it can never be bettered. This is typical of the opportunistic and unprincipled politics of Thiru Karunanidhi. Wherever he perceives his self-interest, he will not hesitate to completely turn upside down his stance and retract his own words. His statement on 22.11.2004 on the arrest of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal and the STF operation in which Veerappan was eliminated smacks of this unbridled opportunism calculated to mislead the people and seek a toehold for his own political gain. How else can one explain this 180 degrees flip-flop, defying political gravity, saying on the first day of the arrest that the action was fair and impartial and on 22.11.2004 claiming that he has misgivings over the arrest and the treatment meted out to Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal?

"We do not have to search afar for the reasons for this extremely unusual behaviour of complimenting my Government in the first place and then diametrically changing his position in quick time. I was myself surprised at how a totally antagonistic person like Thiru Karunanidhi could even think of complimenting my Government for the fair and impartial action in effecting the arrest of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal. This was too good to be true. But now, true to type, Thiru Karunanidhi has neatly done this somersault and gone back on his words because his only mission is to somehow besmirch the fair name of my Government.

`People will not be fooled'

"After his initial reaction complimenting my Government, he has now started his usual game of Goebbelsian misinformation, since it is not politically advantageous for him to be even remotely seen to be complimenting my Government. How best to resile from such a position? `Start some speculative theories and create confusion' seems to be the new game of Thiru Karunanidhi! The people of Tamil Nadu will not be fooled by these double somersault gimmicks indulged in by Thiru Karunanidhi.

"Suddenly Thiru Karunanidhi has queried as to why it has taken the police two months to effect the arrest and what had transpired in between. In The Hindu dated November 23, 2004, Thiru Karunanidhi has been reported to have asked the question as to why there was a two-month delay in the Acharya's arrest. `What happened during that period and what is the reason for the delay,' Thiru Karunanidhi is reported to have asked. The New Indian Express dated November 23, 2004, has reported that Thiru Karunanidhi has raised the query as to why the AIADMK Government took a full two and half months after the murder to effect the arrest. `What happened in the meantime? Why the delay,' Thiru Karunanidhi is reported to have asked.

"This is a totally irresponsible and malicious statement. What does Thiru Karunanidhi mean by asking such a question? It is too much for a person like Thiru Karunanidhi to cast such baseless aspersions and this sickening practice has to cease. A person like Thiru Karunanidhi, who has been in [the] Government, should know that a complex murder case involving hired contract killers will take a minimum of two months to even get close to the real accused. He himself has stated, immediately after the arrest, that investigation would take this length of time. Now he has raised doubts about the time taken and has also speculated about what might have transpired in between.

"This is the kind of cheap politics that Thiru Karunanidhi habitually indulges in. The culprits in this heinous crime sought to throw the Tamil Nadu police off-track by arranging a red herring in the form of surrender of some persons not concerned with the crime. It is only after the Tamil Nadu police interrogated these persons that it was possible to trace the real culprits. As soon as it was clear that this was a false surrender, the Tamil Nadu police very quickly closed-in on the gang and obtained clear information leading to Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal. When these are the irrefutable facts of the case, why is it that suddenly Thiru Karunanidhi has started having doubts?

`Crocodile tears'

"Thiru Karunanidhi has suddenly shown great concern for the welfare of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal in prison and is shedding crocodile tears for him. When the arrest was made, Thiru Karunanidhi displayed undisguised glee and unconcealed joy at the discomfiture of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal. I had in my statement in the Assembly on 17.11.2004 clearly indicated that my Government had taken this action on the principle that all are equal before law and not with the expectation that there would be appreciation if he was arrested; nor fearing any condemnation if he was not arrested.

"Thiru Karunanidhi has made a wild allegation that Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal has not been given proper treatment. Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal himself has stated that he has been treated well. In fact, he has been treated with respect and dignity, befitting a religious head of his stature. There is absolutely no issue about his treatment during the arrest and thereafter. When this is so, suddenly Thiru Karunanidhi has come out with this bizarre statement that Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal has not been treated well. Is it that Thiru Karunanidhi has a different agenda of fomenting communal passions when none exist on this issue? Thiru Karunanidhi can always be expected to fish in troubled waters.

" The Hindu dated November 23, 2004, has reported that when asked if there was a political motive to the arrest, Thiru Karunanidhi said many personal issues were involved. He is reported to have said that there were `some personal matters' between the Sankaracharya and the Chief Minister. `One cannot forget that,' Thiru Karunanidhi is reported to have said. The New Indian Express dated November 23, 2004 has reported that Thiru Karunanidhi said that there had been several personal dealings between the Acharya and the Chief Minister, implying that the arrest was only a fall-out of such dealings. What does Thiru Karunanidhi mean by "personal dealings?" Let him spell out what these "personal dealings" are. Is he also going to say that I have had personal dealings with Veerappan? Thiru Karunanidhi's malicious statement attributing personal dealings as the motive behind the arrest of the pontiff is the height of absurdity... It is malicious, nonsensical and outrageous to cast aspersions of a personal motive in a matter connected with a heinous crime, where the State law and order machinery has been doing its rightful duty. Thiru Karunanidhi's statements are a testimony to his qualities of double-speak, hypocrisy and malice and his ability to play double games. The public are not blind to the fact that it was Thiru Karunanidhi who had instigated his party to go on a hunger fast urging the arrest of the real culprits involved in the Sankararaman murder case. Today, the very same Thiru Karunanidhi is attributing personal motives to me for having impartially discharged my duty. Such outrageous statements casting aspersions on my discharge of duties as the Chief Minister of the State will not be taken lightly and legal action will be taken against all those making such irresponsible and malicious statements.

Criticises M.M. Joshi

"Mr. Murli Manohar Joshi of the BJP has lost his balance and is now coming out with wild statements which are totally in the realm of feverish imagination. He has apparently been carried away by his religious sentiments and has stopped making objective comments. He is reported to have said that there is a motive behind the arrest and that I had ordered it as I was greatly angered by a statement made by Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal about my "arrogance" immediately after the Parliamentary election results. This is the most ridiculous statement that anyone can make. I was not even aware that he had made any such statement. I wish to categorically state that this is the first time I am hearing about such a statement made by Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal. It is most farfetched and ludicrous to even speculate that a press statement could provoke such action. It should never be forgotten that a ghastly murder was the only basis on which the arrest was made. This statement of Mr. Murli Manohar Joshi deserves to be treated with contempt and ought to be dismissed outright.

"Further, some political personalities and a section of the media have made it a habit to criticise me on a daily basis, but I have not tried to take revenge against any of them. I have always been open to such criticism and respected the tenets of democracy. Having been in public life for 22 years, I am accustomed to being criticised regularly and I have taken the most carping criticism in my stride. It is therefore, most ridiculous to state that certain comments made about me by Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal and said to have been published in certain sections of the media constitute the motive behind the action which has been taken in the course of investigation of a most heinous and brutal crime.

`No takeover of Mutt'

"Mr. Murli Manohar Joshi has launched into a diatribe alleging the motive behind the arrest is a plan to take over the Kanchi Mutt. I have made a categorical statement in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly on November 17, 2004 on this issue. I had stated that as far as my Government is concerned, it has the highest regard for the Kanchi Mutt, which has an ancient and reputable tradition. I had also indicated that a few people are insinuating that the Government should take over the administration of the Kanchi Mutt in the present situation. I had then categorically clarified that my Government did not have any intention of taking over the administration of the Kanchi Mutt. When this is the position and I have already clearly stated my Government's stand, it is shocking that Mr. Murli Manohar Joshi has made such reckless statements without an iota of truth.

"Mr. Ashok Singhal of the VHP has made all kinds of wild and fanciful statements attributing motives to the arrest. While I can empathise with his religious fervour, this cannot overwhelm the rule of law, which my Government has sought to uphold. Mr. Ashok Singhal obviously greatly carried away by his agenda, should refrain from making such wild allegations. He has referred to some deal relating to a hospital near Chennai. This is totally absurd and patently untrue. This fabricated story has been put out in a desperate diversionary bid to deflect attention from the heinous and barbaric crime that has been committed.

"Certain sections of the media have been propagating that Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal was advising me on several key issues till recently when a rift occurred, following which, out of personal vendetta, I had directed his arrest. I wish to state that I have visited the Mutt a few times, and paid my respects to Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal, as the head of the respected and revered Kanchi Mutt. At no point of time, did I seek any advice from Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal.

`Arrest, a necessity'

"First and foremost, in this issue relating to the arrest of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal, the Tamil Nadu police carefully assessed the evidence collected and it was only when they were thoroughly convinced of the role of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal that they proceeded to effect the arrest. There can be absolutely no two opinions about the fact that the decision to effect the arrest was made after great deliberation on all aspects. The utmost care was taken to ensure that, when the arrest was effected, there was no semblance of any disrespect. In fact, he was treated with extreme courtesy and dignity befitting his status as the head of a revered religious Mutt. The arrest became a compulsive necessity in the context of the overwhelming evidence pointing to the involvement of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal. I wish to say that the investigation should be allowed to have a free run and the law should be allowed to take its natural course. The best course of action is to let the investigation and the judicial process move forward, upholding the rule of law. Attempts by some organisations and individuals to politicise the issue should completely be eschewed."

[This is the text of the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, Jayalalithaa's statement issued on 24-11-2004]

The media have carried reports of the statement of the Prime Minister's Office indicating that the Hon'ble Prime Minister had written to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu on 6.1.2005, drawing attention to the apprehension that if the Junior Pontiff of the Sankara Mutt at Kancheepuram is also taken into custody, it might lead to the disruption of the `Daily Pooja.' The Hon'ble Prime Minister in his letter had also stated that it is not his intention to interfere with the due process of law in any manner. He has concluded his letter indicating that he was bringing this to the attention of the Chief Minister. The Prime Minister's Office has also indicated that this issue was brought up by the Prime Minister on 7th January, 2005, when he met the Chief Minister at Chennai and the Chief Minister had assured the Prime Minister that all precautions had been taken and all aspects had been considered. 

The Hon'ble Chief Minister has replied to the Hon'ble Prime Minister on 11.1.2005, indicating that she had already written to the Hon'ble Prime Minister on 26.11.2004, in reply to this earlier letter agreeing with the Hon'ble Prime Minister's observation that the due process of law must not be interfered with and law must be allowed to take its own course. The Hon'ble Chief Minister has pointed that in this letter dated 11.1.2005, that it is as part of this process of law that the Junior Pontiff Sri Vijayendra Saraswathi Swamigal has been arrested on 10.1.2005. The Hon'ble Chief Minister has reiterated that all the action taken in this case is in furtherance of the due processes of law. 

The Hon'ble Chief Minister has also pointed out that it is not as if both the Swamigals have not been away from the Mutt at the same time in the past. There have been innumerable occasions when both the Pontiffs have been away from the Sankara Mutt at Kancheepuram. While both the Pontiffs have been away from the Mutt, arrangements have been made for the conduct of the `Daily Pooja' in the past. It would be invidious not to construe this as breaking the tradition and affecting the `Daily Pooja' at the Mutt, while expressing the apprehension that the arrest of both the Pontiffs and their being away be labelled as breaking the tradition of the `Daily Pooja'. In fact, when the Senior Pontiff was arrested on 11.11.2004, both he and the Junior Pontiff were at Mehboob Nagar near Hyderabad, being away on camp for several days prior to 11.11.2004. Further, the Junior Pontiff returned to Kancheepuram only several days thereafter. It is, therefore, quite incorrect and unfounded to connect the arrest of the two Pontiffs with the tradition of the `Daily Pooja' at the Sankara Mutt at Kancheepuram. 

Even at the time of the arrest of the Senior Pontiff, some sections expressed apprehension that this would injure the sentiments of the people. This has been totally belied by the subsequent march of events. The public have greatly appreciated the principled stand taken by the Government of Tamil Nadu that all are equal before the law. The Chief Minister has pointed out that it cannot be Prime Minister's argument that while handling a conspiracy involving hired killers, the Tamil Nadu Police should make a distinction between those who instigated, conspired and financed the brutal murder inside a temple and those who carried it out, extending special treatment to the Pontiffs as against the other accused. It is relevant to point out that all of them face similar charges. 

The Hon'ble Chief Minister has also highlighted the fact that an onerous duty is cast on the Government of Tamil Nadu to proceed with the case in an impartial manner not swayed by sentiments or feelings. In conclusion, the Hon'ble Chief Minister has pointed out to the Hon'ble Prime Minister that upholding the majesty of law and the principle of equality of all before the law, however high or mighty the persons may be, is the bounden duty of the Government of Tamil Nadu and it ought to be their common endeavour to ensure that the Tamil Nadu Police maintains this tradition.

[This is the text of the statement of the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, Jayalalithaa, in response to the Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh's letter on the arrest of the junior Acharya of the Kanchi Mutt, Sri Vijayendra Saraswathi] - 12-01-2005 

Jayalalithaa's statement on Sankararaman case

After being administered the oath of office by the Governor of the State under Article 164 of the Constitution of India, the Chief Minister and his/her Cabinet Members assume office for the administration of the State as envisaged under Article 163. Though the administration of a State Government has many facets, there can be no second opinion that Law and Order, Public Order and the maintenance of peace and tranquillity in the State stand foremost.When a Chief Minister takes the oath of office, he/she commences his/her work relating to his/her office after signing the Forms V and VI prescribed under Schedule-III to the Constitution of India, which respectively contain the Oath of Office and the Oath of Secrecy. It is important to observe that in the oath of office are enshrined the words, "----that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will faithfully and conscientiously discharge my duties as a Minister for the State of ... ... ... ... and that I will do right to all manner of people in accordance with the Constitution and the law without fear or favour, affection or ill-will."

As the Chief Minister of this State, I also hold the Home Portfolio and I administer the Police Department. As a public servant, it is my Constitutional duty to serve the people without fear or favour. It is widely acknowledged that Tamil Nadu stands first in the country in the maintenance of law and order with a proud record of achievements like eliminating the Veerappan menace, rooting out the extremist activities in the State, etc.

In these circumstances, on receiving information about the brutal murder of the orthodox and conservative devotee by name Sankararaman, the Manager of Kancheepuram Varadharajaperumal Temple, in broad daylight, in the office located in the very precincts of the temple by unidentified persons, Police investigation was taken up. This incident has sent shock waves amongst the people, raising the naturally inevitable question in everyone's mind as to why a temple Manager should be brutally murdered, in the very temple premises, by unidentified persons?Prior to this incident, sometime ago, Radhakrishnan, a resident of Mandaveli in Chennai, was brutally attacked with dangerous weapons in the presence of his wife and servant by unidentified persons.In a similar manner, Madhavan of Thirukoshtiyur was brutally assaulted by an unidentified gang on a road in Chennai.These assaults by unidentified persons, and the manner of this murder posed a severe challenge to the Police Department. As the investigations were being carried on painstakingly and assiduously, answers to several intriguing questions unfolded gradually, revealing certain shocking facts. It pointed to the involvement of certain personages who could never have been suspected of involvement in such crimes. When these names were brought to my knowledge, it came as a rude shock to me. The primary duty and responsibility of the investigation of a crime is cast solely on the Investigating Officer of the Police Department. As Chief Minister of the State and as the Minister in-charge of the Home Portfolio including the Police Department, the facts of such cases are brought to my notice only to a minimum extent and that too only in the context and for the purpose of maintenance of law and order and public order. Beyond this there is nothing more. The details of the investigation were not revealed to me, nor was I interested in knowing about these. It was therefore only in the context of taking precautionary steps for the maintenance of law and order and public order that the names of certain persons were brought to my notice.

In this entire episode, I have acted without fear or favour, strictly within the constitutional mandate enshrined in the Oath of Office. Entrusted with the responsibility of carrying out the investigation, the Police Officers have faithfully discharged their duty. In these three cases, two of the victims escaped death by sheer luck, while Sankararaman was brutally murdered. These three cases point to the fact that the three persons who were victims of the assaults had at some point of time connections with the Kanchi Sankara Mutt. This will raise the relevant question in anyone's mind as to why all these three persons, connected with the Kanchi Mutt at some point of time should have been assaulted or murdered?

With the progress of the investigation by the Police, a situation arose wherein the arrest of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal, the head of the Kanchi Mutt became inevitable. That law must take its own course requires no specific directions or orders. Hence I was informed only on the point of the need to take steps for maintaining law and order and public order after such an arrest. While the action taken by the Police and the stand of the Government were widely welcomed by the public, there have also been some unfair and unwarranted comments by certain persons and by a certain section of the Media. What these persons and these newspapers and TV Channels would have said and written in the event of the law not taking its course in any other murder case, is anybody's guess.

This is no ordinary incident. It is a murder, a brutal murder of an orthodox temple Manager, committed by hirelings, in broad daylight within the temple premises. Should this brutal crime be left uninvestigated? Is it their view that the hired assassins and conspirators should be allowed to go soot-free? Should those involved in the perpetration of this murder be shown mercy and allowed to go without any action taken against them under the law? The words "without fear or favour" in the oath of office constitutionally mandated to a Chief Minister can admit of no other course of action than to let the law take its own course without fear or favour.

What does the law say on crime detection? Let us examine this. The investigation of such a murder, the result of a sinister conspiracy with deliberate intent committed by unidentified hirelings, is not an easy one. The investigation of such a crime is a complex affair and the reconstruction of the crime can be done only inch by inch, after meticulous enquiry with numerous witnesses. Based on the thorough investigation and only on the facts as they emerge, the persons involved in the crime can be arrested one by one as the crime unfolds. The basic principle of any investigation is to gather the facts assiduously, collate them, relate and interconnect the evidence so collected. The arrest of the persons involved is an integral part of the investigation process.

When any person is arrested, an application for Police custody is made, and with the permission of the Court, custodial interrogation of the person is also sought. The arrested person is then subjected to enquiry for such a period of time as is allowed by the Court. The enquiry is based on the facts gathered by the Police and the documents seized by them, as well as new evidence gathered by them. Based on the enquiry and new information elicited during custodial interrogation, further arrests are necessitated. This is the on-going chain of investigation and it is fundamental to the investigative process. Proving the factual details about the commission of a crime involves the completion of investigation, the laying of a charge-sheet in the Court, transmission of the case from the Committal Court to the Trial Court, supply of copies of the charge-sheet to the accused, and examination of witnesses on oath. There is no stipulation in law specifying any time limit for completing the investigation, though the person arrested on a murder charge has to be released on bail if the charge sheet is not filed within 90 days of his/her arrest.

In the Sankararaman murder case, no arrested person has completed 90 days of detention. It is stated that 26 persons have been so far arrested. The depositions of the various witnesses have been recorded by the Investigating Officer and also by the Court under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Investigation is going on. It is stated that hundreds of documents have been seized. The nature of the documents and their relevance to the case are being studied. All these things have been revealed in the hearings on the bail petitions held so far in the Courts. In the meanwhile, with a view to stalling the investigation, there have been moves by the accused to resort to frequent filing of bail Petitions from forum to forum. For days together, endless arguments are being carried on. Wasteful advertisements are being released. Slanderous news is being published about the Investigating Officers so as to frustrate their efforts and deflect the investigation. Attempts are being made negate confessional statements recorded by the Court. Public meetings are being held so as to misdirect and delay the investigations. False news is being fed to certain newspapers and TV News Channels. Hunger strikes, demonstrations and television debates are being arranged. These tactics are being resorted to as a concerted, orchestrated campaign in support of the accused, at enormous expenditure, to obfuscate the legal proceedings and with a view to somehow weakening the case. The Government is also burdened with this task of overcoming the manoeuvres of these conspiratorial forces to block the truth and ensure that law and justice are upheld despite the creation of insurmountable problems.

No one wished and no one expected that the heads of the Sankara Mutt established to uphold the Hindu Dharma would stray from the path of Dharma and the doctrines of the Shastras to be arraigned as accused in a murder case. At the same time, when all the evidence clearly pointed towards them in the commission of such a crime, that could not be ignored. Guilt or innocence can be established only when the full-fledged trial takes place in the Court and until then, all the previous stages up to the stage of filing of charge-sheet form part of the domain of investigation. At this stage, there can be no room for speculation as to whether this or that fact or document establishes the crime and whether the evidence so gathered is enough to prove the crime. Such an evaluation is possible only when the full-fledged trial itself takes place, which is rightfully the task and duty of the Court. This is the due legal process.

In a case such as this, namely, a conspiracy to have a brutal murder committed by hirelings, a proper investigation can be conducted only when the investigation is not jeopardised till the very end by the onslaught of an alternative trial by a media blitz, and such activities will only impede and obfuscate the ingoing investigation. The people must now become aware of these diversionary and obfuscatory actions of vested interests and political parties that seek to use the columns of certain newspapers and other media aided by half-baked and self proclaimed legal eagles whose lifetime profession is to confuse and divert the truth. These people often give interviews also. In the maintenance of law and order, one cannot discriminate between friend and foe, poor and rich, religious head and atheist. For the State, the maintenance of law and order, peace and tranquillity are supreme and it cannot make distinctions or exceptions for the influential, the high and the mighty. For such persons who are influential, wealthy or religious heads, to believe that they are above law, beyond the ambit of the judicial system and that such persons cannot be called to question for any of their wrongdoings, would be a travesty of the basic tenet of India's Sovereign Constitution that all are equal before the law.

The law requires that it is the duty of all persons, from all walks of life, to aid the State, in the performance of its Sovereign duty in maintaining law and order. The arguments entertained and debated in the Media by some persons that since famous personages are involved in this case and, therefore, there must be preferential, indeed reverential treatment extended to them, that the statements of witnesses connecting them to the case, must prima facie be debunked, cannot be considered to be supportive of the State in the performance of its sovereign functions, or consistent with the duties of all citizens who believe in the rule of law. The appropriate time and place for such arguments are only at the time of trial in the Court of law.

There have been crimes committed by persons and leaders of various faiths and religious denominations in the past, who have been arraigned in Courts of Law. On these occasions, there were no premeditated side-tracking conclusions or tutored or monitored "public views" expressed that such persons were not, or could not, be guilty of the crimes for which they were charged. No section of the Media showed such eagerness and alacrity to support such accused persons in the past. But in the case of the arrest of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi alone, even as the investigation is in progress, and a trial before the Court has not even commenced, various pressure groups and interests have been actively manipulating the media to spread misinformation about the case. It is for the people to consider and assess as to how far such actions can be considered acceptable. The people must consider and conclude for themselves as to what these same interests, forces and newspapers would have spoken and written if the rule of law had not been upheld, and if the law had not been allowed to take its course.

It is the bounden duty of the Police Officers investigating a crime to evaluate every bit of evidence that they collect from every witness that they interrogate, or every document that they seize, for the veracity, credibility and relevance to the case under investigation. It is the duty of the media and other organisations charged with the responsibility of supporting the State Government in maintaining law and order to maintain an unbiased and balanced approach to a case as it progresses. This will ensure that the Police Department's investigation to bring out the truth and allow the law to take its own course is, in no way, prejudiced. On the contrary, we are faced with an extraordinary situation wherein certain sections of the media and interest groups have resorted to playing an entirely opposite and contrary role.

The crime relating to Sankararaman's murder has been reported at the Vishnu Kanchi Police Station and the investigation is being conducted by the appropriate officers. The Police Officers are conducting the criminal Investigation as per the authority vested with them under the Indian criminal procedure Code. When an investigation is taking place, even the judiciary cannot intervene in the mater in the context of several judgements to this effect, the most important judgement being King Emperor Vs. Khawaja Nazir Ahmed as reported in the All India Reporter 1945 Privy Council Page 18. It is their statutory right. That being so, how is it possible legally for me to interfere or intervene in the matter? Also, I have no necessity to do that. When this is the position, adherents of the B.J.P. are asking me to withdraw the above case and also to apologise for whatever had taken place so far and are talking in such a fashion from various platforms. It is painful to note that such requests are being made by persons who had earlier administered the country. When an investigation is in progress in a murder case, how is it possible that the case be withdrawn? It is a fundamental principle of law that an investigation stands apart and is beyond the personal likes and dislikes of a Chief Minister. It is amazing how this elementary principle is not known to those making this demand. Even without knowing this basic principle of investigation in a murder case, they have chosen to drag my name into the investigation process purely out of animosity towards me. They should at least now realise this and desist from such scurrilous attacks. When law empowers the Investigation offices to have the necessary and essential power to investigate, how can a Chief Minister interfere in it one way or the other? The investigation is being carried out by the officers according to a clear plan and with circumspection as they do in all such cases.

The Sankararaman murder case is being investigated in the same manner as other such cases in any police station in Tamil Nadu. When this is the position, I wish to emphasise that the stand of the BJP and certain other vested interests that I can intervene with the investigation process is purely politically motivated and their expectations are contrary to the rule of law.

Adherents of the BJP think that religious leaders are above law and no investigation can be conducted against them. It is for the public to think and judge whether their view is right or not. The BJP may be interested in taking up this issue in their programme to rehabilitate their party. I cannot yield to their request contrary to the law of the land, especially when I have taken an oath under the Constitution which is of a secular nature. Inspite of all these obstacles and hurdles, you have my firm assurance that the Government of Tamil Nadu will maintain law and order in the State in an exemplary manner and uphold the majesty of law without fear or favour.

Jayalalithaa, Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.
16-01-2005