Two weeks back, in this column I poured out my feeling on the suspicion over Shankaracharaya's involvement in a murder case. As expected some appreciated that I took a stance on this issue and some accused me of 'assuming seer's guilt' when he is only alleged and not convicted. I fully understand and support that "the practice of disclosing detailed information about evidence that the investigating officials collect in arresting an alleged criminal" is not good for fair and free trial. Sometimes, the leak of information from the police quarters makes one to suspect the motive of police behind arresting a person allegedly involved in a crime. In the case of Senior Shankaracharya of Kanchi Mutt, the police must exercise restraint and strict discipline, and should not entertain interviews (blatantly or surreptitiously) to media people. As one of my friends pointed out, "the public have the right to know what happened" but when the case is sub judice it would do good to exercise caution. The evidences or circumstantial evidences should be produced first in the court. 

There is lot of debate in the country on the issue of media trial that the arrested seer has to go through. In a country where the press is enjoying liberty and freedom, it is difficult to avoid this except when it crosses limit and prejudices the entire trial itself. 

Now coming back to the accusation against my previous article that I assumed seer's guilt, I would like to mention that I am a staunch supporter of the principle that "no one is guilty until and unless it is proven in the court of law". In spite of that, my views and stance in my previous article was unequivocal as I personally took a stance in this case. Goddess Seetha has to be beyond suspicion when she took human incarnation. Hence, the seer should not have provided any chance to come under suspicion. The court verdict may go either way as the conviction rate on such cases (where circumstantial evidence is the only way to prove the alleged involvement of the accused). However, I believe that the seers must be "beyond suspicion". As BJP and Hindutva (militant view of Hindutva) followers proclaim that religion is a  matter of faith and can not be measured and judged by law, as far as my stand goes, IT IS A MATTER OF BEING BEYOND SUSPICION. I had not assumed seer's guilt but for me the case is all over as I expect the seers who guide my religious beliefs/life to be above suspicion.  
May be I am too inspired by the educationist J Krishnamurthy's teaching that on confused situations, one must gather courage to take a stance and in the process should resist the temptation to go with the bandwagon. 

I do not conform to the idea that seer is a symbol of our Hindu religion and hence he must be protected come what may. At the same time, I support the view that this case should not be politicized or given religious colour if only the nation want to know the real culprits behind the gruesome murder. Otherwise, we are  going to witness yet another Best Bakery type case. It is a matter to be decided above emotions and beliefs. I recollect the letter Abraham Lincoln wrote to the Headmaster of a school in which his son was studying - "Try to give my son the strength not to follow the crowd when everyone getting on the bandwagon...Teach him to listen to all men; but teach him also to filter all he hears on a screen of truth, and take only the good that comes through". Since the Chief Minister has categorically informed that "the arrest became a compulsive necessity in the context of the overwhelming evidence pointing to the involvement of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal", let us see what evidences come before the law. The investigation should be allowed to have a free  run and the law should be allowed to take its natural course.