Opinion - Editorials   

MORE THAN JUST RELIEF

THE SUPREME COURT'S order releasing the Kanchi Sankaracharya, Sri Jayendra Saraswathi, on bail in the Sankararaman murder case follows well-established principles that govern judicial discretion on the grant of bail. In purely legal terms, if his arrest two months ago could not certainly be seen as proof of guilt, his release on bail is not to be seen as final exoneration either. For, as the Supreme Court has made clear, its findings relate only to the issue of bail and the question of innocence or guilt and the legal issues on the admissibility of evidence would have to be decided independently by the trial court. The issues, however, extend far beyond the legal into the area of public and political debate. For while the presumption of innocence till the end of the trial is a fundamental legal principle, it does not always seem to apply to the areas of public perception and public debate that are often marked by suspicion and immediate conclusions of guilt. The Kanchi Mutt and its followers have been in a state of siege over the last two months, particularly after the setbacks in the Madras High Court, but with the Supreme Court order, the siege would seem to have lifted for the moment.

More than just relief, they could have reason to celebrate as well, considering the detailed findings of the Supreme Court that have made light of the prosecution's case even if they relate only to the bail petition. In the first place, the court has discounted the 39 letters highly critical of the ways of the Mutt written by Sankararaman over a three-year period as providing enough of a motive for murder in the absence of evidence that the Sankaracharya ever showed resentment against him. Secondly, the prosecution could not provide any proof of payment of money to "hirelings" either from the ICICI Bank or from other cash receipts. Thirdly, the court has pointed out that the confessional statements of two of the co-accused implicating the Sankaracharya can be accepted only if there is other evidence of the existence of a conspiracy, and "no worthwhile prima facie evidence apart from the alleged confessions" had been brought to its notice.

The right to personal liberty and the presumption of innocence combine to set limits on pre-trial detention, which is not to be used as a punishment. Bail is generally the rule and judicially established principles allow pre-trial detention only on grounds of protecting society from dangerous offenders and ensuring that the legal process of trial proceeds without hindrance. Thus if a person charged with a serious offence were likely to abscond or threaten witnesses or tamper with the evidence, he could be detained. The court, however, would permit such detention only if it finds reasonable grounds for believing that the person is guilty. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution in the Sankaracharya case did not cross this threshold. It is a reflection on the detached professionalism of the bar that the lead counsel in the case, Mr. F.S. Nariman and Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, had their roles reversed from the positions they had argued in the Pappu Yadav case in the Supreme Court, which set restrictions on the release on bail of persons accused of offences punishable with death or life imprisonment. That decision of a two-judge bench applied only to the facts of the particular case and did not have a wider application, the Supreme Court has now ruled. Referring to the impending arrest of the junior Acharya, Sri Vijayendra Saraswathi, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had, in a letter as well as in person, sounded a note of caution to the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister to bear in mind the disruption of the daily puja in the Mutt and the offence to religious sentiments that such a move would cause. Chief Minister Jayalalithaa had responded that alternative arrangements could be made for the puja and that far from the religious sentiments of the people in the State being injured, they had "greatly appreciated the principled stand" of the Government. Quite apart from the question whether or not the religious observances in the Mutt would be disrupted and the religious sentiments of the people hurt, there may be no legal justification for the arrest. With the Supreme Court finding that the evidence gathered so far in the Sankararaman murder case is too thin to warrant detention of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi, the arrest of the junior Acharya, who would seem to be more peripheral in the case, is inexplicable.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News: Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous | Engagements |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Updates: Breaking News |

Stories in this Section

MORE THAN JUST RELIEF
A DECISIVE MANDATE
Fundamentalism, American style
Re-engineering CAPART
Act of vendetta?

Copyright © 2005, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu