Chennai: Self-styled Godman Nithyananda expressed sincere regret before the Madras high court and apologised for the misleading statements made by him earlier in his affidavit.
When the petition filed by M. Jagathalapradhapan of Madurai came up for hearing before Justice R. Mahadevan, Nithyananda filed an affidavit to the above effect. The judge posted to February 26, further hearing of the case.
During the hearing, the judge orally asked the counsel for Nithyananda to spell out his stand on two aspects as to whether Nithyananda could give an undertaking that he will not enter into the Madurai Adheenam Mutt till the disposal of the civil suit pending before the competent civil court, then this writ petition will be closed or if he is going to contest the petition, then appropriate orders will be passed on the merits.
Enraged over the attitude of Nithyananda in not rectifying the misleading statements made in his affidavit, despite repeated warnings from the court, the judge had on January 29 warned of issuing an arrest warrant against him if he fails to rectify the wrong.
In his present affidavit, Nithyananda submitted that he was withdrawing the statement made earlier and in any other place in the affidavit calling himself as the “293rd Guru Mahasannidhanam” while the 292nd Pontiff Sri La Sri Arunagirinatha Sri Gnanasambanda Desikan Paramacharya Swamigal was still holding the position of Madadipathi of the Madurai Adheenam Mutt. “I sincerely regret and apologise for the said statement”, he added.
This affidavit was filed to satisfy the queries raised by this court and he sincerely hopes it satisfies the concerns raised by this court during the hearings, he added.
In his petition, Jagathalapradapan sought to direct the authorities to take suitable and appropriate action against Nithyananda and protect the Madurai mutt.
In December 2017, the court has passed interim orders restraining Nithyananda and his disciples from entering the Madurai Aadheenam until further orders. During the hearing, the court had found that Nithyananda made misleading statements in his affidavit. Though the court had directed Nithyananda to file an affidavit making proper changes to the statements, he failed to comply with the direction.
