The following are the relevant passages of the Court Order given by the 2nd Additional Munsif of the Puducherry Court in Radhikaranjan’s case. An oral order was given on 5 December, 2012 followed by a written order on 8 February, 2013 restraining the Ashram Trustees from stopping Radhikaranjan’s classes in the Ashram School. Normally, in such circumstances, when the court verdict is overwhelmingly in favour of the aggrieved party, the authorities (be it an educational or a business institution or the Govt itself) graciously accept defeat and quietly implement the Court Order without further ado. After all, who would like to face charges for contempt of Court? But no, the Ashram Trustees, especially Manoj Das Gupta, Managing Trustee cum Registrar, can never accept defeat! He will fight till the point of landing behind bars, hoping that the aggrieved party will run out of money and patience. So even though contempt of court has been filed against him in Radhikaranjan’s case, the latter will have to wait for some more time to get relief. The Ashram Trust will certainly file an appeal in the next 30 days, and in the case of a second adverse order, will go for further appeals. This is how the Ashram Trust presently functions – filing appeal after appeal for very personal reasons and wastefully spending the money of devotees and disciples all over the world, who donate for the cause of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother’s work, and certainly not for legally harassing the inmates of Sri Aurobindo Ashram.
Here is a list of events and postings on Radhikaranjan’s case:
1. Article of Radhikaranjan Das which infuriated Manoj Das Gupta because it criticised his support to Peter Heehs
(13 May, 2012)
(13 May, 2012)
2. Report of Radhikaranjan’s discussion with the School Committee headed by Manoj Das Gupta
(18 May, 2012)
(18 May, 2012)
3. Manoj Das Gupta stops Radhikaranjan’s classes
4. Manoj Das Gupta won’t give a written notice to Radhikaranjan about the suspension of his classes
5. Nasty defamation campaign of Radhikaranjan by ex-students of the Ashram. (May 2012)
6. Disinformation campaign on Radhikaranjan. None of these allegations could stand the test of the Court’s scrutiny. (May 2012)
7. Court grants an interim injunction on restraining the Ashram Trustees from stopping Radhikaranjan’s classes.
(20 June, 2012)
(20 June, 2012)
8. Radhikaranjan wins Court Case (5 December, 2012)
Transcription of pages 10 & 11 of the Court’s Order issued on 8 February, 2013:
Further we have to discuss and determine the following points in detail during the trial only:
(1) When it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was admitted in the Ashram at the age of 7, that is in the year 1966, and has been doing sadhana continuously till the age of 51 at present, can the petitioner be denied from getting/continuing the assigned work including teaching and basic necessities for the reason that there was no contract between the petitioners and the respondent trust?
(2) Are the Trustees empowered to stop any inmate or volunteer from carrying their assigned work including teaching without even giving any reason in writing? Whether is it against the Principles of Natural Justice?
(3) Whether the petitioner shared his opinion with the students as alleged by the respondents as well as by the parents of the students?
(4) Whether the petitioner caused any harm/injuries/damages to the students?
(5 ) Whether any necessity arose to disturb or to stop the petitioner from doing sadhana?
(6) Whether the petitioner is entitled to continue in the Ashram for doing sadhana?
16. So, on determination of these questions only we can find out whether the speech of the petitioner caused injuries/damages to the students and to the reputation of the Ashram? So, without examination of the alleged parents who gave complaints against the petitioner as well as the students and the respondents by giving opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine, this court cannot come to a conclusion that the petitioner caused damages to the students as well as to the reputation of the Ashram and hence the petitioner is to be deprived from his work and basic facilities. So, in these circumstances this court thinks that though the Ashram is for the welfare of the students, without giving any reason in writing to the petitioner, without finding the harm/injuries caused by the petitioner to the students, making disturbances in the assigned work including teaching to the students of the petitioner who is aged about 51 years, who has been doing sadhana for the past several years in the Ashram, is against the principles of Natural Justice. In these circumstances this court thinks that till the disposal of the suit the petitioner is not to be disturbed by the respondents from doing/continuing sadhana with the work already he carried in the Ashram and the petitioner is not to be disturbed from his daily necessities like food, clothing and shelter in the interest of justice on the principles of natural justice.
17. In view of the above findings this court has decided to allow this application.
Transcription of the Decreetal Order issued on 8 February, 2013:
This is a petition filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC to pass an ex-parte order of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their men and successors in office, agents, servants or any persons(s) representing them from denying, depriving, disturbing and stopping the work and basic necessities of life like food, clothing, shelter of the petitioner in Sri Aurobindo Ashram till the disposal of the suit and for further orders.
The petition was presented on 19.06.2012 and taken on file on 20.06.2012.
This petition came for hearing on this day before this court in the presence of Tvl. J. Cyril Mathias Vincent, counsel for the Petitioner/Plaintiff, And Thiru. K. Palaniappan, counsel for the respondents 1 to 6, and upon perusing case records and having stood over consideration till this day, this court passed the following:
This Court Doth Order and Decree
1. That the petition be and the same is hereby allowed.
2. That temporary injunction is hereby granted restraining the respondents/defendants, their men and successors in office, agents, servants or any person(s) representing them from denying, depriving, disturbing and stopping the work and basic necessities of life like food, clothing, shelter of the petitioner in Sri Aurobindo Ashram till the disposal of the suit.
3. That there is no costs.
Given under my hand and seal of this court on this the 5th day of December, 2012.
II Additional District Munsif