Rama Setu: SC notices to MuKa, Baalu, others

Date : 29th October 29, 2007To : The Pioneer, (e.mail) –             For favour of publication                                                                                                           Modern iconoclast – Karunanidhi Sir,         In a recent interview with Mr. Shekhar Gupta, Editor-in-Chief, Indian Express, on NDTV 24 x 7’s Walk the Talk show, (published in the Indian Express on October 29), Tamilnadu’s chief minister and DMK chief said: “In the Tulsidas Ramayana, Sita is not Ram’s wife but sister. Only in the Valmiki Ramayan is she his wife”. This is his yet another blasphemous slander on Hindu icons Ram and venerable Sant Tulsidas.        Throughout his epic, Ramcharitmanas, Tulsidas has referred to Sita as the wife of Ram. He names Dashrath as the father and Kaushalya as the mother of Ram, while stating Janak as the father and Sunayana as the mother of Sita. How the two could be brother and sister?          Earlier, Karunanidhi had mischievously proclaimed that Valmiki had called Ram a drunkard. Now, he has advanced the argumentn: “He (Valmiki) says, ‘Hanuman tells Sita that because of being separated from her, Ram has not touched any liquor”. It is nothing but Karunidhi’s perverse imagination.            Valmiki Ramayan, Sundar Kand, contains a  long dialogue, in about 500 shlokas, between Hanuman and Sita, (Sargas 31 to 40 and 56). At one point, Sita asks Hanuman, “Will I shortly see Ram’s weapons killing Ravana, with his kith and kins?… Has Ram’s bright golden face faded in my absence, like lotus dries without water?” Hanuman has the tedious job of re-assuring Sita that Ram was equally in pain by her separation, but had also the will and strength to destroy Ravan and to rescue her. So, Hanuman says, (Sunder Kand, 36/41-42), “Na mansam Raghavo bhunktey na chaiva madhu sevatey/ Vanyam suvihitam nityam bhaktamashnati panchmam// Naiva danshaan, na mashkaan, na keetaan na sarisripaan/ Raghavo-apnayed gatrat twadgatenantaratman a//, (Those of the Raghu dynasty do not, as a rule, take meat nor drink liquor. Following the life of hermits, Ram takes his food according to shastric prescriptions. He remains so absorbed in your thoughts that he does not care to remove from his body insects, mosquitoes and reptiles)”.   In Ayodhya Kand, (75/38-39), Ram’s younger brother Bharat cites drinking as one of he vices. In Kishkindha Kand, (33/46 and 34/12), reprimanding Sugriva, Lakshman calls drinking a sin. With these glaring facts it is blasphemous to use the fair name of Valmiki to call Ram a drunkard. This remark is also a slur on Mahrishi Valmiki, revered by a large number of Scheduled Castes.                                    Karunanidhi seems to have grown as a modern iconoclast for Hindus Yours faithfully,

Ram Gopal

 SC issues notices to MK, Baalu
Tuesday October 30 2007 00:00 IST
Prabhakar Rao VorugantiNEW DELHI: Supreme Court has on Monday issued notices to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi, Union Transport Minister T R Baalu, State Minister for Transport K N Nehru, Chief Secretary L K Tripathi, the State Director General of Police P Rajendran and Secretary to Transport Department Debendranath Sarangi. SC notice was on a contempt petition filed by the All-India Dravidra Munnetra Kazhagam, represented by its Presidium Chairman E Madhusudhanan alleging that notwithstanding the order of the apex court, a bandh was enforced in Tamil Nadu.

A Bench comprising Justice B N Agrawal and Justice P P Naolekar, however, dispensed with the personal appearance of the alleged contemnors for the present. They were directed to file individual replies.

Counsel for the petitioners Guru Krishna Kumar made a forceful plea to the Bench that there was wilful disobedience of the September 30 apex court order, restraining the State of Tamil Nadu from organizing a bandh on October 1 to seek early implementation of the Sethusamudram project.

Principal officers and heads of government who had a duty to ensure that the bandh did not take place, failed. Buses did not ply on the roads. The Chief Secretary went on record to say that only 61 buses plied on the roads.

A conscious decision was taken the previous day to see that bandh was organised, he added. The Bench asked as to by whose orders the buses were stopped from plying. Somebody must have passed the orders.

To this, Guru Krishna Kumar replied that it was by oral instructions. Everybody was aware of the apex court’s orders, he stated. The respondents failed to prevent the bandh both by their actions and inaction. For all practical purposes it was enforced by the state machinery.

They ought to explain their inaction, the counsel stated and cited many newspaper clippings. When the Bench said whether the newspaper reports could be relied, Kumar said that he has got a Compact Disc and if the court permits, he would bring in a laptop and display it in the court hall.

There is not even a whisper of a denial by them. One of the respondents went on record imputing motives and scandalizing judiciary. If judges are not making mistakes, why are the orders of the lower courts being stayed. Has anyone ever heard of a hearing on a Sunday? And they talk about impeachment of judges, Kumar added. To this the Bench remarked, If they want impeachment, they can proceed.

Senior counsel Andhyarujina, appearing for Karunanidhi said that the personal appearance of the respondents may be dispensed with. The Bench replied that normally in all contempt cases, they dispense with the personal appearance initially. That will be considered actively after the show cause notice, the Bench added.http://tinyurl.com/32g4lr Supreme Court issues notice to Karunanidhi, Baalu

New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi, Union Transport Minister T R Baalu and others for allegedly going ahead with October 1 state-wide bandh on Sethusamudram controversy.

A Bench of Justices B N Aggarwal and P P Naolakar, however, dispensed with the personal appearance of the VIPs in the matter.

The Bench issued the notices after the counsel for opposition AIADMK furnished in the Court photographs and various news clippings to prove that the ruling party had actively sponsored the bandh despite the apex court’s order prohibiting it.

The counsel also told the Court that the Union Transport Minister had allegedly made several inflammatory and contemptuous remarks against the apex court for prohibiting the bandh.

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/000200710291201.htm
Supreme Court issues notices to Karunanidhi, Baalu

The Supreme Court Monday issued notices to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi and Union Surface Transport Minister T.R. Baalu among others for defying the court orders against a shutdown in the state Oct 1.

From correspondents in Delhi, India, 29 Oct 2007 – (http://www.indiaenews.com)

The Supreme Court Monday issued notices to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi and Union Surface Transport Minister T.R. Baalu among others for defying the court orders against a shutdown in the state Oct 1.

The notices were issued on a petition by the AIADMK seeking initiation of contempt of court proceedings against the two.

The shutdown was called by DMK on Oct 1 in support of the Sethusamudram canal project, aimed at building a shorter navigational route for ships.

Hindu groups and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have protested the cutting of the Rs.240 billion canal through a geographical formation known as Adam’s Bridge or Ram Sethu, which they believe was built during Hindu god Ram’s time.

(Staff Writer, © IANS)

http://www.indiaenews.com/politics/20071029/77655.htm

CM Karunanidhi lands in legal mess over TN bandh

This story does not contain a link
by sherkhan4209211 1 hour 24 minutes ago

New Delhi: Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi landed in legal trouble on Monday after the Supreme Court slapped a contempt notice on him for defying the apex court’s directive, asking him not to go ahead with the state bandh on October 1.

The bandh call had been given by the DMK to seek speedy completion of the Sethusamudram project.

The court also issued similar contempt notices to Union Minister TR Baalu, state Chief Secretary LK Tripathi, Tamil Nadu Transport Minister KN Nehru, and Director General of Police P Rajendran.

The SC bench, comprising Justice BN Agarwal and Justice PP Naolekar, however, exempted all VIPs from a personal appearance in the court.

The court passed the order on a contempt of court petition filed by the AIADMK on October 2 after Tamil Nadu observed a near-total bandh on October 1 in defiance of the SC ruling.

Hearing on the case, the court as asked why did not they (CM and others) act to prevent the October 1 bandh even after the court’s order asking them to prevent any bandh on that day.

The defendants have four weeks to respond. However, they don’t have to be present personally during the hearings.

In its petition, the AIADMK claimed that it was blatant contempt of court. The two-member bench of Justice BN Aggarwal and Justice P Sathasivam, then, lashed out at the TN Government for observing the bandh.

“If there is no compliance with our order, it is complete breakdown of constitutional machinery. We will then have to direct the government to impose President’s Rule. If this is attitude of the DMK government, the UPA government should not feel shy of dismissing it and imposing President’s Rule,” the Bench said.

It had also said that if the Tamil Nadu Government did not comply with its order, it would not hesitate to summon the CM and the Chief Secretary.

http://www.indianpad.com/story/130878

Sethu issue: SC notices to Karunanidhi, Baalu

By IE

Monday October 29, 12:36 PM

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi, Union Transport Minister T R Baalu and others for allegedly going ahead with October one state-wide bandh on Sethusamudram controversy.

A Bench of Justices B N Aggarwal and P P Naolakar, however, dispensed with the personal appearance of the VIPs in the matter.

The Bench issued the notices after the counsel for opposition AIADMK furnished in the Court photographs and various news clippings to prove that the ruling party had actively sponsored the bandh despite the apex Court’s order prohibiting it.

The counsel also told the Court that the Union Transport Minister had allegedly made several inflammatory and contemptuous remarks against the apex Court for prohibiting the bandh.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/071029/48/6mj6b.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: