PROCEEDINGS  UPDATE

Posted June 25th, 2005

On Nov. 16th '04, petitioners filed a substantive writ (9421 of 2004) inter-alia seeking a court order to initiate an investigation via India's Central Bureau of Investigation into the prima facie evidence surrounding the alleged fatal poisoning of His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.  The matter came up for hearing for the first time on Nov. 22nd '04, and was argued at length by counsel for the petitioners, resulting in the Court's call for reports by respondents-  The State of U.P. & Others.  The date for response/hearing was set for 13th Dec. '04

Due to a clerical error, the date was somehow changed and brought forward without notifying counsel for the petitioners.  When the matter came before the Hon'ble judges Imtiyaz Murtaza and (Mrs) M. Chaudhary, the petition was dismissed on grounds that it had not been pressed by counsel for the petitioners.  On hearing of the dismissal, counsel for the petitioners immediately notified the Court of the error and requested a recall of the order; restoring the petition to its original number.  Application by counsel was accepted by the Hon'ble judges, the dismissal was corrected and the next hearing was set for 10th Jan. '05. 

 On 10th Jan. the board was too heavy: cases were long drawn out.  The hearing was deferred to the following month.  In February the respondent's reply* was heard and a date for arguments was set for March.  In March, counsel for the petitioners, before a double bench, presented strong arguments against reply by the respondents.  The Hon'ble judges took the arguments into consideration and requested further hearing from concerned. parties  A date was set for April.

 Anticipating an order from Supreme Court Delhi on a writ** filed by four other concerned followers of Srila Prabhupada, petitioners of the first writ requested a postponement of the April hearing at Allahabad High Court.  The Court obliged, a date was set for 19th May '05.  Once again the board was heavy and the hearing has been deferred to a date yet to be determined in July/August '05.

 * Our comments on the Counter Affidavit (Reply) by Respondents.

 The counter affidavit was filed under the name of P.R. Srivastava, Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), district Mathura.

Mr. Srivastava took oath that he was deputed as deponent because he was "fully acquainted with the facts" , and has "read and understood the contents of the writ petition, its affidavit and annexures and as such is in a position to reply to same."  However, only a few lines into his deposition, Mr. Srivastava informs us- "....Swami prabhupada, Founder Acarya of ISCON who was died on 8th Nov., 1977" (sic).  Had the DSP read the facts as sworn, he would have noted that the date of Srila Prabhupada's passing was recorded as 14th Nov., 1977, and the acronym of the society he founded is- ISKCON, not ISCON.  With such blasé attention to detail it should come as no surprise that plaintiffs are seeking the involvement of India's Central Bureau of Investigation.

 Mr. Srivastava then goes on to state-  "The petitioners have adopted pressure tactics only to harass the respondents".  It would appear from Mr. Srivastava's conclusion that the plaintiffs, who are domiciled abroad, with no record of any previous criminal activity or altercation with police, have quite suddenly taken it upon themselves to harass law enforcement in Mathura, as if they have nothing better to do.  Not to mention the fact that the plaintiffs are also devotees of Sri Vishnu, who see Mathura as a holy place, and law enforcement as commendable in maintaining that religiosity.

 The Respondent's main bone of contention appears in the sixth paragraph of the Reply wherein it is stated- "....the petitioner had the knowledge about the matter in the year 1999 but they kept mum and after expiry of six years at this belated stage they filed a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court with a malafide (sic) intention only to create pressure upon the respondents...."  Once again we see Mr. Srivastava belie his oath in regards to reading and understanding the facts as presented in the writ.  It is clearly stated in the writ (4, iii) that when audio recordings of the "poison conversations" were discovered the evidence was presented to the Governing Body Commission (GBC) of ISKCON.  The GBC in turn assured concerned parties that an investigation would be undertaken.  Following their assurances the GBC initiated an investigation that eventually ground to a halt due to lack of funding, or so we were told.  Following the inconclusive investigation by the GBC, the petitioners, with support from other disciples of Srila Prabhupada, pushed on the investigation, compiling a dossier of prima facie evidence before reporting the matter to police in July 2004.  These facts are attached to the writ petition as "LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS", yet Mr. Srivastava failed to note the time-frame or endeavour undertaken by plaintiffs to ensure cause for investigation. 

 How strange it is that the DSP sees malevolence in the plaintiffs because they waited three years for the GBC investigation, and a further three years seeking expert opinion before raising the alarm.  However, he sees no malevolence in the suspects who were made aware of the poisoning by the target himself; profited sequentially from his passing and; kept the matter hidden until discovered twenty-two years later.  Following the discovery, they made some pretentious effort at investigation which mysteriously ran out of funds when arsenic (twenty times higher than normal) was detected in hair relics of the deceased.   And then, in a bid to befuddle followers of Srila Prabhupada, the suspects compiled and financed a book of lies and deception mitigating the seriousness of the allegations.  Further, when offers were made to finance the inconclusive investigation, the GBC rejected the proposal by way of indifference. 

 Whether or not the Deputy Superintendent truly believes that the plaintiffs have "malafide intentions" or that they are out to "harass the respondents", the bottom line is: the alleged crime can only be dealt with, to full exposure, by the CBI.  Only the Bureau has the expertise, knowledge, intelligence and network, to bring this matter comprehensively before the Hon'ble Court, and for adjudication to a conclusion. 

 Under its Director, Mr. U.S. Misra, the CBI has secured autonomy and insulation to function at optimum, and at all levels.  The Bureau covers a smorgasbord of crime, in cases of corruption and fraud committed by public servants of all Central Govt. Departments, Central Public Sector Undertakings and Central Financial Institutions; economic crimes, including bank frauds, financial frauds, Import Export & Foreign Exchange violations, large-scale smuggling of narcotics, antiques, cultural property and smuggling of other contraband items etc.; Special Crimes, such as cases of terrorism, bomb blasts, sensational homicides, kidnapping for ransom and crimes committed by the mafia/the underworld.  Boasting a conviction rate of 70 % pa. (since inception 49 yrs. ago), the CBI is comparable to any of the world's best Law Enforcement Agencies. Is it any wonder that the plaintiffs are on their knees before the Court, seeking CBI involvement. 

 **Supreme Court Writ

 A writ was filed at the Supreme Court on 11th April 2005.  The writ, containing the names of four plaintiffs, was guided by the Supreme Court to the Allahabad High Court for expedition.  This writ is not to be confused with the already existing writ that was lodged at High Court Allahabad on 16th Nov. '04.