Tuesday, October 4 2005 19:43 Hrs (IST) - World Time -

New Delhi: The Supreme Court was today (Oct 4, 2005) taken by surprise over the filing of chargesheet on a holiday in the Sankararaman murder case in which the two Kanchi Sankaracharyas are facing trial.

"How the Magistrate sat on holiday. How did he came to know that prosecution was to file a chargesheet that day," a Bench comprising Chief Justice R C Lahoti and Justice G P Mathur observed during hearing of the plea of Sankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati seeking transfer of the case outside the State.

Senior advocate Fali S Nariman, appearing on behalf of Sankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati, pointed out that the chargesheet was filed in a Kancheepuram court on January 10 when it was a holiday on account of 'Eid'.

He said the Magistrate sat the whole day waiting for it to be filed.

The petition had alleged that the 'surcharged atmosphere' in the state was not conducive for a fair trial.

He also questioned the conduct of police saying that the Investigating Officer Prem Kumar, before filing the challan, went with it to Varadarajaperumal Temple and performed puja.

However, the court said there was no objection to the officer going to temple before filing the chargesheet but the opening of the court and presence of Magistrate on a holiday for the chargesheet was a worrying factor.

Nariman said the fanfare and the statements by the police after the filing of the chargesheet were objectionable.

"The accused were not given the copy of the chargesheet. But each and every reporter was having a copy of it and the Investigating Officer told them that it was now between Varadaraja (god) and Sankaracharya," he said.

Nariman said that due to various acts of Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa, who is also the Home Minister, the atmosphere was totally surcharged and not conducive for free and fair trial of the case.

In this context, he referred to the suo motu statement of Jayalalithaa in the Legislative Assembly on November 17 last year in which she had stated that investigation had established that several persons, including the Seer, wanted to kill Sanakararaman.

The senior advocate said the atmosphere in the state was such that not even the advocates who came to defend the accused were spared by the state machinery.

"False cases were foisted on the advocates on the complaint of the wife of Ravi Subramaniam, the accused who has turned approver in the case," he said.

Nariman said even the journalist who wrote against the state action in the case had to face brunt of the prosecution and gave example of S Gurumurthy against whom a defamation case was registered by the state.

"All this creates an apprehension in the mind that the whole machinery was controlled by the state and for a fair trial the case has to be transferred outside the state," he said.

The other accused, including Junior pontiff Vijayendra Saraswati, has filed an affidavit supporting transfer of case outside the state.

However, senior advocate Shanti Bhushan, appearing for Ravi Subramaniam, who has turned approver, opposed the plea saying that the power to transfer the case has to be exercised in extraordinary circumstances which have not arisen in this case.