Failed Legal Maneuvers Against Sathya Sai Baba: PART FIVE

Failed Legal Maneuvers Against Sathya Sai Baba: PART FIVE

Basava Premanand, the Gold-Control-Act & His Failed Writ Petition:
India’s Gold Control Act of 1962 prohibited citizens of India from holding pure gold bars and coins. The old holdings in pure gold had to be compulsorily converted into jewellery that had to be declared. Only licensed dealers were allowed to deal in pure gold bars and coins. The Gold Control Act was abolished in 1990.

Basava Premanand (an Indian rationalist and critic of Sathya Sai Baba from 1968) attempted to file a writ petition against the Guru for materializing gold jewelry and other gold items, claiming that Sai Baba was violating the Gold Control Act for “manufacturing” gold. Of course, this claim is utterly absurd and Premanand’s writ petition was promptly dismissed. In order for Premanand to have had a valid case, he would have needed to:

  • Prove that Sathya Sai Baba truly “materialized” gold objects. Since Premanand contends that Sathya Sai Baba is a fraud and palms his alleged “materializations”, he would have had to change his rationalistic beliefs and accept that the Guru actually “materialized” gold items.
  • Provide eyewitnesses and/or documentation showing Sathya Sai Baba “materializing” gold items.
  • Provide expert testimony that the “materialized” gold items were indeed made of gold.
  • Explain how gold “materializations” are associated with the mining of gold in India.
  • Explain how gold jewelry violated the Gold Control Act when it specifically prevented citizens in India from possessing gold bars and gold coins (not gold jewelry).

Basava Premanand listed 89 objects he alleged were made of gold (that he cited from Sai-related books) that were materialized by Sathya Sai Baba from 1968 – 1978. Of course, Premanand did not have access to any of those 89 objects and thereby could not prove they were made of gold. Hence the complete futility of his arguments.

It is important to point out that all of the information pertaining to Basava Premanand’s failed writ petition must be obtained solely through him (B. Premanand, Satya Sai Baba and the Gold Control Act. Published by INDIAN CSICOP, Podanur 1986). No scans or copies to the writ petition or transcipts have been made public. Therefore, one must rely on an obviously biased publication from Premanand and believe his selective and self-serving quotes that he alleged were said by Judge Y.V. Anjaneyulu.

It is true that Judge Y.V. Anjaneyulu is a well known member of the Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust, Prasanthi Nilayam. It is also true that Judge Y.V. Anjaneyulu specialized in affairs dealing with the Gold Control Act (Ref). It is very suspicious that Basava Premanand filed his writ petition with a judge he knew was a Sai Devotee. It certainly appears that Premanand filed his absurd and ridiculous writ petition dealing with the Gold Control Act in order to trap Judge Y.V. Anjaneyulu and then boast that all the Judges in India are somehow Sai Devotees and biased.

Even Justice R Ramakrishnam Raju said about Premanand (in yet another one of his failed petitions):

“Further, the allegation that if the investigation is not handed over to the C.B.I., the State Police against whom allegations are made, would not arrest the accused Police Officers is not correct. Even the Police Officers against whom allegations are made, have also been arrested. The petitioner has not come with clean, hands. The petitioner; earlier filed a writ petition unsuccessfully alleging that the Head of the Ashram had violated the provisions of the Gold Control Act. It is finally contended that this Court has no jurisdiction to direct investigation by C.B.I.”

For the record, Justice R.R. Raju is not a known Sai Devotee or known associate of the Sathya Sai Organization.

Therefore, we have yet another example of a failed writ petition that was not an actual court case. Sathya Sai Baba did not have lawyers present to defend him and the writ petition was dismissed (and rightly so). Again, it is also very disturbing that Barry Pittard misrepresented the facts about this writ petition and attempted to argue that it was an actual court case. It most certainly was not.


Also see:

Failed Legal Maneuvers: Part One
Failed Legal Maneuvers: Part Two
Failed Legal Maneuvers: Part Three
Failed Legal Maneuvers: Part Four
Failed Legal Maneuvers: Part Five (You Are Here)
Failed Legal Maneuvers: Part Six
Failed Legal Maneuvers: Part Seven

%d bloggers like this: