CD featuring Nithyananda and me morphed: Ranjitha
This text was machine-transcribed from the printed book and may contain errors. Select the words and choose “Report a mistake”.
Bangalore, Dec 30, DHNS: Last updated: 30 December, 2010 Tamil actress Ranjitha, who in March this year was shown to be in a sex romp with Nithyananda, on Thursday described in a complaint before a Ramanagara magistrate that the video featuring her and the godman was "morphed".
According to the complaint against Lenin Karuppan, whose secretly videographed romp between Nithyananda and Ranjitha was televised by news channels on March 2 this year, the "morphed video" was used to "blackmail and extort money" from her.
In this context, the complaint — a copy of which is with Deccan Herald — says that in "furtherance of a conspiracy" Lenin "created a video with a man resembling Shree Nithyananda Swami and a woman having intimate relationship with him".
The Deccan Herald - 30 December 2010 Ranjitha declares video is false
Case 5:13-cv-00393-VAP-SP Document 156-3 Filed 11/03/14 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:2603
1 DECLARATION OF DHARMARAJA HANSRAJ SAXENA
2 I, Dharmaraja Hansraj Saxena, declare and state as follows:
3 1. I have personal knowledge of all of the facts contained in this declaration
4 and, if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to all of said facts.
5 2. I deny any wrongdoing in this case.
6 3. I was a corporate officer of Sun TV Network Limited ("Sun TV") from
7 2009 to 2011. I was the Chief Operating Officer of Sun Pictures, a division of Sun
8 TV. I was an employee of Sun TV from 1994.
9 4. As a corporate officer of Sun TV Network Limited, I had high-level
10 discussions with the other corporate officers of Sun TV and the members of the
11 Board of Directors of Sun TV. I was highly familiar with the operations of Sun TV
12 in general, not just the film division, which I headed.
13 5. In March of 2010, V. Raja was the head content editor of Sun TV's news
14 programming. S. Kannan was the Chief Technical Officer. R.M.R. Ramesh was the
15 head of Kal Publications, which was effectively part of Sun TV and effectively
16 owned by Sun TV.
17 6. As of March 2010, I had personal knowledge from my working at Sun
18 TV that V. Raja, S. Kannan, and R.M.R. Ramesh had a routine practice of using the
19 broadcasting of false news stories and true stories that have fabrications added to
20 extort money from individuals and organizations. This happened at least seven times,
21 likely more. These three individuals would use associates to have much of the direct
22 contact with the victims.
23 7. Prior to March of 2010, I shared information with Kalanithi Maran that
24 there are specific complaints about these people V. Raja, S. Kannan, and R.M.R.
25 Ramesh on extortion activity. And Kalanithi Maran also indicated to me that he heard
26 and received complaints on specific incidents and he condoned it.
27 8. A board meeting which comprised of Kalanithi Maran, S.Kannan,
28 1
176829.1 SAXENA DECLARATION
11 March 2014 - Saxena Confession
18 December 2011 - Dinamalar newspaper (Tamil): Saxena confession - SunTV making a business in extortion and blackmail, His Divine Holiness one amongst many other victims.
ORDER SHEET IN THE COURT OF PRL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE At: Bangalore (Dist: BANGALORE) O.S. 2336 / 2012 Plaintiff: PARAMAHAMSA NITHYANANDA V/S Defendants: TV 9 KANNADA NEW CHANNEL And Others.
30/03/12 Nature of Case: INJUNCTION SUIT Provision of Law: Order 7 Rule 1 & 2 CPC Advocate for the Plaintiff/s Sri/Smt I THARANATH POOJARY Date of Filing: 29/03/2012 3:58 PM Relief Claimed: TO GRANTING AN ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE 1ST AND THE 9TH DEFENDANTS AND OTHER DEFENDANTS IN FUTURE FROM EXHIBITING BROADCASTING OR TELECASTING OF THE PROGRAMMES REPORTS CLIPPINGS VISUALS ETC., AND AS PER PLAINT Date of Cause of Action: 23/03/2011 Date: 29/03/2012 Receipt No.: 87649 / 2011 Amount: 25 Purpose Mode Bank Name Court Fee on Plaint CASH Process Fee CASH 108
IA 1 O 39 rule 1 & 2 r/w sec.151 of CPC PRAYS TO GRANT AN AD-INTERIM ORDER OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE DEFENDANTS 1ST & THE 9TH & OHTER DEFENTANS IN FUTURE & FROM BROADCASTING OR TELECASTING OF THE REPORTS/PROGRAMMES/VISUALS OR ANY OTHER CONTENT REGERING TO THE PLAINTIFF IN WHATSCEVER MANNER ? AS SEX MANIAC PERVERT "KAAMA NANDA" OR USING SUCH OTHER TERMS THAT ARE PROVOCATIVE & CAUSING HATRED FOR THE PLAINTIFF'S HIS DEVOTEES, DISCIPLES & FOLLOWERS AMONGST THE PUBLIC, & ETC.
This case is made over to the learned [signature] Judge, sitting in the Court Hall No. 40 For the Disposal according to Law.
PRL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE Bangalore Date Proceedings Issue Summons of Plaint the Defendant/s through Court/PPAD/Courier returnable by:
Various Indian Courts and regulatory bodies did a thorough analysis of the video and the events around it, and came down heavily on the media.
Top television channels like Aaj Tak and Vijay TV were ordered to apologize for airing the baseless defamatory video.
Justice AP Shah (retired)-led self regulatory body, Broadcast Content Complaints Council (BCCC), directed the channel ‘Star Vijay’ to apologise to Ranjitha Menon for telecast of its programme ‘Nadanthadhu Enna Kutramum Pinnaniyum’ on 21 March 2012. The channel has been asked to run a scroll featuring the following apology scroll in Tamil and English, one after the other, in large and legible bold fonts at normal speed, every two hours on its channel for seven days starting September 9 at 12 noon to September 16 at 10 am:
"In compliance with BCCC's order passed on 2 September, 2013, Star Vijay apologizes to Ms. Ranjitha Menon for the telecast of its programme 'Nadanthadhu Enna Kutramum Pinnaniyum' on 21 March 2012. This Programme was found to be in violation of the Self-Regulatory guidelines of Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF)." (Tamil translation attached)
The BCCC order came down heavily on the television channel and said, “The Council is of the considered opinion that the explanation offered by the channel is completely untenable and unsatisfactory. Firstly, it is clear that the channel did not exercise any caution whatsoever in telecasting the said episode without confirming the authenticity of the clippings."
"Further, even the contention of the channel that the said Programme was telecast for creating awareness amongst public is to be believed, then where was the need for constantly making references to the complainant and also repeatedly showing her completely unconnected videos from public life?" the order questioned.
The BCCC Order, Page 1