B. Premanand vs Satya Sai Baba (Formerly Known as Satyanarayana Raju) and Others

Y.S. Anjaneyulu, J.—The petitioner claims himself to be a Rationalist. He states he is the Convener of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of claims of the paranormal in India which Committee is engaged in dispelling the superstitious and blind beliefs gripping the society in India and the world. He also claims to be an author of various books and articles concerning the cause of spreading rationalism and scientific temper.

2 The petitioner states that the matters raised by him in the present writ petition are in public interest. Commending the writ petition for admission, learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri K. N. Balagopal stated that in urging the matters for consideration of this Court the petitioner is acting bonafide with a view to vindicating the cause of justice and is not acting for any personal gain or private profit or out of any motivation or other oblique consideration. Learned Counsel hastened to add that the petitioner has no ill-will against Sri Satya Sai Baba, first respondent herein. His only concern is to focus attention on what he considered to be a flagrant violation of certain provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (''the Act'', for short) and the continued indifference on the part of the authorities to whom representations were made by him since 1981 to take note of the alleged violations. Being fully convinced that the authorities to whom representations were made by the petitioner are reluctant to take action, Learned Counsel stated, the petitioner had no alternative but to bring the matter before this Court for appropriate consideration. Demonstrating a sense of fairness, learned Counsel has put up for consideration of this Court certain legal propositions tersely and attractively and pleaded for issuance of notices to the respondents. I also heard the learned Standing Counsel for Central Government.

Briefly put, the matter is this: Over the decades the first respondent gained reputation and popularity as a God-man and has considerable following throughout the country. It is stated that among the followers of the first respondent there are great and eminent persons belonging to different walks of life. It is said that persons occupying high offices and also highly placed persons in the society are among the admirers of the first respondent. The petitioner states that the first respondent blesses his devotees who throng to have his audience. Some of the devotees, it is said, are very preferentially treated by the first respondent. He materialises holy ash (Vibhuti) from thin air and offers the same blessing to some devotees, yet some others receive a variety of articles and things similarly materialised from air by the first respondent. Yet others, who, according to the petitioner, belong to a highly sophisticated and affluent class of devotees, receive very expensive articles and things similarly materialised by the first respondent. It is said that in a number of books published in ''Prasanti Nilayam'' where the first respondent lives, references are made to the first respondent materialising from air articles of solid gold, gold ornaments such as necklaces, rings, ''Mangala Sutrams'' (thalis) and a host of other articles and ornaments, including those studded with precious stones like Diamonds, Rubies and Sapphires etc. The references in the books indicate that the articles and ornaments so materialised were presented by the first respondent to the special category of devotees. The names of the recipients of these expensive presents made of gold are, it is claimed, indicated in the books published. The petitioner consolidated a statement giving a description of the articles and golden ornaments materialised by the first respondent on different occasions and the names of the persons to whom they were presented by the first respondent. it is represented that this statement is prepared with reference to the information contained in the various books published.

The petitioner claims that in materialising gold articles and ornaments in the above manner for presenting the same to the devotees by way of blessing, the first respondent has been violating certain provisions of the Act. In the affidavit filed it was stated that the first respondent has contravened the provisions contained in Sections 8, 11, 14 and 16 of the Act which are punishable offences under Sections 85, 86 and 87 of the Act. The petitioner claims that the aforementioned acts of the first respondent involving, according to the petitioner, violations of the Act were brought to the notice of the Gold Control Authorities for taking appropriate action against the first respondent but the representations made by the petitioner went unheeded. The petitioner, therefore, seeks a Writ of Mandamus, directing respondents 2 to 5 to initiate action against the first respondent for infringment of the provisions contained in Sections 8, 11, 14 and 16 of the Act, punishable under Sections 85, 86 and 87 of the Act. The petitioner also seeks a further direction to the Union Government, respondent No. 2 herein, to initiate action against respondents 3 to 5 u/s 95 of the Act, as, according to the petitioner, respondents 3 to 5 have failed to discharge their duty for the contravention of the provisions of the Act by the first respondent when brought to their notice. This briefly is the subject matter of the writ petition.

Both in the affidavit as well as the writ petition reference was made to the alleged contravention of the provisions contained in Sections 8, 11, 14 and 16 of the Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated fairly during the course of his arguments that Sections 8 and 14 of the Act may have no relevance except in a general way. Learned Counsel for the petitioner did not specifically urge that there was any contravention by the first respondent of the provisions contained in Sections 8 and 14 of the Act. The main thrust of the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there is a clear violation of the provisions contained in Sections 11 and 16 of the Act in the aforementioned acts of the first respondent.

Section 11 of the Act prohibits the making, manufacturing, preparing, processing etc., of primary gold, articles, ornaments etc. Learned Counsel made it clear that no allegation concerning primary gold is made against the first respondent. It is, however, pointed out that when the first respondent materialised from air, by using his spiritual powers or otherwise, some gold articles and gold ornaments, it must be said that be had made, manufactured or prepared those gold articles and ornaments within the meaning of Clauses (b)(c) and (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act. Inasmuch as Section 11 totally prohibits the making, manufacturing or preparing any gold ornament or gold article or anything containing gold of any purity except as otherwise provided in the Act, it must be said, argues the learned Counsel, that the first respondent committed violation of the provisions contained in Section 11 ot the Act punishable u/s 85 of the Act. Attention is also invited to Section 16 of the Act which provided that every person who owns, or is in possession, custody or control of, any article or ornament shall make within thirty days from such acquisition a declaration in the prescribed form as to the quantity, description and other prescribed particulars of any article, or ornament, or both, owned, possessed, held or controlled by him. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he has strong reasons to believe that the first respondent did not make a declaration u/s 16 of the Act and even if a declaration is made such a declaration did not include the gold articles and ornaments which he materialised and presented to devotees as above mentioned. Violation of the provisions contained in Section J6, learned Counsel points out, is punishable under Sections 86 and 87 of the Act.

Learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government urged that in the facts and circumstances of the case the first respondent could not be said to be making, manufacturing, preparing or processing any gold articles or gold ornaments involving violation of the provisions contained in Section 11 of the Act. Learned standing counsel also urged that in the facts and circumstances the provisions contained in Section 16 of the Act also do not come into operation. Learned Standing Counsel urged that it was obviously for the above reasons that respondents 2 to 5 did not think it necessary to initiate any action as urged by the petitioner in his representations.

I have given my anxious and careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. I am unable to accept the contention that in the facts and circumstances urged in the present case there is any violation of the provisions contained in Sections 11 and 16 of the Act. I have already indicated the relevant provisions in Sections 11 and 16 of the Act The short question for consideration is whether by materialising articles and ornaments, as alleged by the petitioner, the first respondent could be said to be ''making, manufacturing, preparing or processing'' any articles or ornaments containing gold within the meaning of Clauses (b), (c) and (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act. The expressions, "make", "manufacture", "prepare" and "process" are not defined in the Act Nor is there any provision in the Act as to when a person can be said to be making, manufacturing, preparing or processing any article or ornament containing gold. These expressions must, therefore, be understood in their popular sense. The expressions occur in an Act providing "for the control of the production, manufacture, supply, distribution, use and possession of, and business in gold, ornaments and articles of gold and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto". These j expressions have intimate connection with business, commerce or trade/ which involve the making, manufacturing, preparing or processing of gold articles and ornaments. The making, manufacturing, preparing or processing of articles or ornaments containing gold involve different stages of operations. An article or an ornament which was admittedly materialised from air in a split second by the use of spiritual powers or otherwise cannot be said to have been ''made, manufactured, prepared or processed'', within the meaning of Section 11(1) of the Act. What is prohibited by Section 11 is only the manufacturing, making, preparing or process-ling etc., of golden articles or ornaments and not materialising instantly (articles and ornaments from air without having recourse to any operations Connected with the making, manufacturing, preparing or processing of an article or an ornament. It is not, therefore, possible to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in materialising articles and ornaments containing gold in the manner alleged by the petitioner the first respondent has been ''making, manufacturing, preparing or processing'' articles or ornaments containing gold. I am, therefore, firmly of the view that in the facts and circumstances urged by the petitioner there is no ''violation of the terms of Section 11 of the Act.

Adverting to the contention that there is a violation of the provisions of Section 16 of the Act in the sense that the first respondent failed to make a declaration including therein the ornaments and other articles materialised by the first respondent. I am again unable to accept that in the facts and circumstances there is any obligation to make a declaration in respect of such matters. Even according to the petitioner, the article or ornament is instantly materialised from thin air and given away to the devotees. It cannot, therefore, be said that the petitioner has acquired any ownership or possession, custody or control of any such article or ornament. It is not denied that the article or ornament is not materialised by the first respondent for the purpose of acquiring any ownership or for the purpose of keeping it in his possession. It is categorically admitted that the article or ornament containing gold is materialised for the sole and specific purpose of giving it away blessing the devotee. The terms of Section 16 of the Act, therefore, have no application.

In order to justify the allegation that the first respondent acquired ownership or possession of article or ornament the petitioner makes certain averments in the affidavit. I may refer to the following averments :

The first respondent has set up and controls many Trusts and he claims that he is a sanyasi and has renounced all his wealth. Then, plainly the said Trusts owned/controlled by the first respondent must be owning the said gold, gold articles and gold ornaments and passing them on to the first respondent. Neither have these Trusts complied with the requirements of the Gold Control Legislation.

Now, these averments are destructive of the petitioner''s own contention. If the origin and source of these articles and ornaments are traceable, as the petitioner claims to the Trusts created by the petitioner, then the Trusts should be asked to explain their source and origin and not the first respondent. In that view no violations can be attributed to the first respondent and the entire exercise of the petitioner is futile. That apart, there is no supporting material to connect or link the first respondent with the articles and things owned by the Trusts. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is unable to establish any link between the alleged possession of articles of gold and ornaments by the Trusts established by the first respondent and the instant materialising by the first respondent of the articles and ornaments from air. The petitioner has not been able to establish how things in the possession of the Trusts can magically travel through air into the hands of the first respondent. It is therefore, clear that this allegation concerning the travel of articles and ornaments from the possession, custody and control of the Trusts to the first respondent is made without the slightest supporting material. It is not possible to give any credence to the same.

On the own admission of the petitioner representations have been made to the respondents 2 to 5 since 1981. There are no grounds to think that these representations did not receive consideration of respondents 2 to 5. The fact that no action has been taken by respondents 2 to 5 would undoubtedly indicate that on a scrutiny of relevant provisions of law respondents 2 to 5 were satisfied that there were no violations by the first respondent. Learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government was, therefore, right in contending that respondents 2 to 5 did not consider it necessary to take any action on the representations of the petitioner as no case of violation of the provisions of Sections 11 and 16 of the Act was made out. In that view the question of issuing any direction to the 2nd respondent to take action against respondents 3 to 5 u/s 85 of the Act does not arise.

In the result, I am not satisfied that a case has been made out for the issue of Rule Nisi. The Writ Petition is accordingly rejected.