February 21st
why is the entire indian media keeping quiet about this assault on a fellow-journalist's freedom of speech? he alleges that he is being intimidated, and surely this is a signal to others to toe the line?
we know the answer, of course. gurumurthy is a hindu, therefore a second class citizen. now imagine if his name were not 'gurumurthy' but 'abdul mustafa' or 'john thomas'. the entire media would have been falling over itself to condemn the "scurillous attacks on a fine upstanding member of the fourth estate".
can we say apartheid, boys and girls?
------
Chennaionline, Feb. 21, 2005
Columnist Gurumurthy moves HC
Chennai, Feb 21: Columnist S Gurumurthy today moved the Madras High
Court to quash the criminal complaint filed against him by the Special
Investigation Team, probing cases against the Kanchi Mutt and its
Seers, for allegedly giving false evidence and refusing to answer
questions put to him in connection with his columns in newspapers.
Admitting the petition, Justice K P Sivasubramanian issued notice to
the Tamil Nadu government and SIT and posted the petition for hearing
on February 25.
Earlier, Gurumurthy's counsel, senior advocate T R Rajagopalan, sought
to extract an assurance from the state Public Prosecutor K Doraisamy
that his client would not be arrested till February 28, which was not
conceded.
Gurumurthy also sought a court direction, restraining the SIT from
proceeding with the 'malafide and motivated' complaint till disposal
of his petition.
The columnist alleged that during interrogation in December last, the
SIT Chief and its investigation officer had threatened him with
prosecution for interferring in the investigation into cases against
Seers of the Kanchi Mutt by writing critically and questioning the
methods of police investigations.
Referring to the charge of providing false information, he asked
whether Article 21 of the constitution would permit and authorise the
police to prosecute and arrest a person on the basis of statements,
purportedly recorded by the police from him, not shown to him and not
signed by him.
Stating that after a complete study of material available in the
Sankararaman murder case, he had written a series of articles in an
english daily between November 22 and December three last, Gurumurthy
contended that after analysing the material, he had concluded that the
prosecution case mainly rested on circumstantial evidence.
He alleged that the very tenor of the allegation made it evident that
it was only 'a malicious and malafide device' to wreck vengeance on
him and hamper him from carrying on his public duty as a columnist,
which he had been doing for the last two decades.
The columnist contended that the complaint did not state what
information was within his knowledge, which he did not furnish to the
SIT.
He said the government and SIT should have averred the information
they had sought and which was withheld.
Claiming that the complaint against him was an 'oblique threat'
against the fourth estate, he said he apprehended that the SIT would
vigorously pursue the complaint and also add further allegations as an
afterthought to threaten him. (Our Correspondent)
No comments:
Post a Comment