The New Indian Express - - FRONT PAGE -

T’Pu­ram: Se­nior ad­vo­cate Aryama Sundaram will rep­re­sent the Tra­van­core Devaswom Board (TDB) in the Supreme Court hear­ing of the re­view pe­ti­tions in the Sabari­mala case. The board meet­ing also de­cided to stick to its pre­vi­ous stand of favour­ing the en­try of women of all ages to the shrine. It ex­pects that its opin­ion will be sought by the court while con­sid­er­ing the pe­ti­tions. “The board be­ing a Con­sti­tu­tional body is duty-bound to obey the SC or­der. The board will state its opin­ion in the court only if cir­cum­stance war­rants,” said board pres­i­dent A Pad­maku­mar in a state­ment. The meet­ing de­cided to in­form the SC about the vi­o­lence and protests at San­nid­hanam, Pampa and Ni­lakkal dur­ing Thula month poo­jas and Chithira Aat­tavishe­sham. The meet­ing as­signed TDB com­mis­sioner N Vasu to con­duct dis­cus­sions with Aryama Sundaram. He will be as­sisted by stand­ing coun­sels of the board K Sasiku­mar and S Ra­j­mo­han. The meet­ing also de­cided to seek le­gal ad­vice from Ker­ala Devaswom Re­cruit­ment Board chair­man M Ra­jagopalan Nair on the Sabari­mala case. Nair, a se­nior ad­vo­cate, had served as TDB pres­i­dent dur­ing pre­vi­ous LDF Gov­ern­ment’s ten­ure. ENS AC­CUS­ING the state gov­ern­ment of mis­us­ing its ma­chin­ery to tar­nish his as well as the party’s image, for­mer BJP min­is­ter and min­ing baron G Ja­nard­hana Reddy has moved the Kar­nataka High Court by fil­ing two sep­a­rate pe­ti­tions.

In one pe­ti­tion, Reddy has sought quash­ing of the FIR reg­is­tered by DJ Halli po­lice over the al­leged ponzi scam, say­ing that the po­lice are try­ing to im­pli­cate him falsely.

In the other pe­ti­tion, Reddy has re­quested the court to is­sue direc­tions to the Home Depart­ment to en­trust the in­ves­ti­ga­tion to com­pe­tent of­fi­cers other than DCP S Girish and ACP H N Venkatesh Prasanna, Cen­tral Crime Branch, ac­cus­ing them of ha­rass­ing one of the ac­cused in the case and can­vass­ing that Reddy would be ar­rested even though his name was not men­tioned in the FIR.

In the pe­ti­tion, Reddy’s coun­sel Chan­drashekhar RP said that the po­lice ought to have in­ves­ti­gated the case dili­gently in­stead of leak­ing de­tails of proof to me­dia while the case was still un­der in­ves­ti­ga­tion. It re­flected a careless ap­proach of the po­lice to­wards the probe of a crime which ought to have been very con­fi­den­tial, Reddy’s coun­sel said.

“Abus­ing and ha­rass­ing one of the ac­cused to give false state­ments against Reddy, the po­lice are can­vass­ing that they would ar­rest Reddy. The state ma­chin­ery has been mis­used for the ben­e­fit of a few in­di­vid­u­als. It is a con­spir­acy of gov­ern­ment to im­pli­cate Reddy into an of­fence, such that the image and rep­u­ta­tion of Reddy and his po­lit­i­cal party is ad­versely af­fected. Only to achieve po­lit­i­cal mileage and sab­o­tage the in­ter­est of Reddy and his po­lit­i­cal party, such a tac­tic is adopted un­der the guise of in­ves­ti­ga­tion,” Chan­drashekhar stated.


Ben­galuru Congress work­ers dur­ing a protest against the Cen­tral Gov­ern­ment on de­mon­eti­sa­tion on Fri­day |

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.