Cult Free World is committing libel and defamation by stating as fact that the group is sexually abusive (see this, this, and this), and by labeling a court case "Sexual abuse cases" here when really it is a defamation and libel case and jurisdictional appeal that was won by Shri Ram Chandra Mission (Sahaj Marg) against The Pioneer, an Indian newspaper. These statements are completely false and part of his long-standing agenda to push a negative POV toward eastern spiritual traditions with a guru, evidence provided in detail below.

First, here is the actual court case that User:Cult Free World labels "Sexual abuse cases" on this page.

The details are as follows (review case above for verification):

"The Pioneer" newspaper published an interview of a woman who said she was sexually abused by members of Sahaj Marg/Shri Ram Chandra Mission. There was no proof, no criminal investigation, and the newspaper relied on this woman's word only (see case, i.e., "...they have given much emphasis that it was on the basis of the statement made by Smt. Pragya Prabhati Mishra," p.4, #5). A member of Shri Ram Chandra Mission filed suit saying that they were defamed because their group was defamed. The district court agreed and found the newspaper had committed libel and defamation and awarded damages. The newspaper appealed the district court decision claiming that only an individual can be defamed, and that an individual cannot claim defamation because their group was defamed, and requested the lower court case be quashed. The high court denied the appeal, ruling that: "Prima facie offence under section 307 I.P.C. is appearing against the accused applicant [the Pioneer newspaper]. It is not a case where charge sheet may be quashed." (summary judgement here).

In the full ruling here the judge first explained why there was an appeal, "At this stage these proceedings have been challenged on the ground that the complainant would not come within the category of’ ‘person aggrieved by the offence’ and so all these complaints are barred by Section 199 of the Code." p. 2

After the judge presented summaries of both sides of the case (i.e., the newspaper said the journalists were highly skilled persons and that they simply relayed the woman's allegations and were not responsible for assessing truth; Shri Ram Chandra Mission said the allegations were baseless, derogatory, and false, and caused damage to the reputation of a totally spiritual institution), he printed an excerpt of the article. He then ruled, The news item extracted above and also the allegations made in the complaints are prima facie libelous and defamatory. Prima facie offence is made out against the accused applicants disclosing the ingredients of the offence under section 500 IPC." p. 4 #5

The judge concluded, "In the present case the complainants are appearing to be aggrieved persons and so they have every right to bring the complaints." p. 4, #8 (This ruling also appears in the bold summary at the beginning of the full ruling, i.e., where it says that yes, the complainant is an aggrieved party and his complaint cannot be barred, see p. 1).

Thus, despite both a higher and lower court finding the newspaper article and said allegations "prima facie libelous and defamatory," Cult Free continues to (a) label the case "Sexual abuse cases" when really it is a jurisdictional appeal of a libel and defamation case, and, (b) he continues to defame and libel the group itself by saying it engages in sexual abuse. This is an eastern meditation group and he is defaming it by making up negative claims about it and saying people are trying to hide things, when he himself can't even find any bona fide third-party sources.

Wikipedia has strict rules against defamation and libel, i.e., It is Wikipedia policy to delete libellous material when it has been identified. Further, according to WP:BLP, this holds for any Wikipedia space, including talk pages and user pages (see this).

Please note that this court case was mis-represented in the previously deleted content as well, and one reason the articles were deleted, see this, written by a former incarnation of Cult Free World. It has taken me a while to reconstruct what was said on that deleted talk page, which I have done above, and is another example as to why this MFD should be closed with a delete and the topics salted until verifiable and reliable secondary sources can be provided.

Thank you for looking into this. Renee (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page is to discuss deletion tagged by you, by no means anyone can interpret any court order, if you want please come out with some secondary source, we cannot accept your interpretation of any judgment, given your extremely biased POV regarding this cult. And please, let this page remain a MfD discussion only. --talk-to-me! (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the full ruling here and the summary judgment here. Thank you. Renee (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what we did not want to get into - legal interpretations, and this was the same exact reason we decided to delete pages on Sahaj Marg in Sept. 2007. User:Cult free world just does not want to accept this fact and continues to pull every one in this direction. On top of this, it's completely absurd, User: Cult free world wants secondary sources to interpret text mentioned the very source it produced. Upon reading the section pointed out by User: Renne [1], here is another extracts (page 2, #2) ... "To the contrary “Shri Ram Chandra Mission” is totally a spiritual institution involved in search of truth through meditation and Sahaj Marg. The accused have conspired against the pious institution by making such defamatory publication." This is a clear waste of time for many and waste of resource such as WP. I urge User:Cult free world to remove this page immediately or else I will vote for action against this user. Duty2love (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I am giving no legal interpretations. I am providing the sites and providing the exact quotations. Others please feel free to read the judgement. I know it is complicated but it is only five pages (don't be put off by the very large pdf document, it contains lots of cases).

By the way, I notice that the link to the summary judgment does not work. To find it enter the Judge's name and the date of September 25, 2003, into the "eJurix - Allahabad High Court Judgement Information System." You can cross-reference the summary judgement where the judge justifies his decision based on the case of "State of Haryana Vs. Chaudhari Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (I) SCC 335: 1992 Cr.L.J. 527 SC] and Ajai Mitra Vs. State of U.P. [AIR 2003 SC 1069]," with the same justification appearing in the full court ruling here (on p. 5, 2nd column, first full paragraph). In the summary judgement the judge ruled a prima facie case existed against the accused (Pioneer Newspaper) and that the lower court case cannot be quashed.

In the full ruling he also concluded, "The news item extracted above and also the allegations made in the complaints are prima facie libelous and defamatory. Prima facie offence is made out against the accused applicants disclosing the ingredients of the offence under section 500 IPC." p. 4 #5 and that the "complainants are appearing to be aggrieved persons and so they have every right to bring the complaints." p. 4, #8 (These are exact quotations; draw your own interpretations.)

I've pasted in the summary judgement below, found in the eJurix system above:

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble S.S. Kulshrestha, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and also the learned A.G.A. and perused the materials on record.

Prima facie offence under section 307 I.P.C. is appearing against the accused applicant. It is not a case where charge sheet may be quashed. Reliance may be placed on the case of State of Haryana Vs. Chaudhari Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (I) SCC 335: 1992 Cr.L.J. 527 SC] and Ajai Mitra Vs. State of U.P. [AIR 2003 SC 1069]. Charge sheet was submitted in the year 1994. Much time has already elapsed. In the result this application is dismissed.

25-9-03

skv/8095-03

Libel cannot be allowed to exist on Wikipedia -- either in user space, talk pages, anywhere. It is my belief that Wikipedia community is of one mind on this issue. Renee (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These is no point interpreting any court order, (without a secondary source), the link has been re-worded as case against media. this is what it is, what was/is the outcome, is none of our business here on wikipedia, let those who wish to follow the link, interpret it, don't feed your interpretation to other wikipedia editors, they are intelligent enough. --talk-to-me! (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is another WP:BLP violation that needs to be looked at immediately.

User:Cult Free World states: "Later in 2003 Parthasarathi Rajagopalachari group attempted to capture the property of another group and finally succeeded in 2006." The only references he gives are Hindi references, which he probably translated himself, so we cannot trust the titles he gives (based on his previous history of creative title interpretation such as in the court case Renee references above). I couldn't find the article but he has probably translated the hindi word "kabzaa" as "capture" when it could just as easily be translated as "posession". His statement is totally false and does not reflect what really happened. There are no third-party sources to support this exceptional, false claim. Given the lack of evidence, this statement should be treated as the derogatory text it is and disallowed. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the paper cuttings available on net ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The words used in Europe by most government committees and agencies for these "new religions" are "harmful sect", not cult. And rather than getting into describing the "cultish" aspect of these groups (as most religions could be deemed "cults" if described by one or the other of the pro(s) or con(s)), some Europeam government agencies (the Belge Government) simply lists one or two of the main books of the group. The Belgian government site: Centre d'Information et d'Avis sur les Organizations Sectaires Nuisibles CIAOSN http://www.ciaosn.be/ (Organizations "Sectaire Nuisible" tranlates from French as "HARMFUL SECT", not cult)... I am Acadian French and am fluent in French.

In the case of this article, it can be shown that Shri Ram Chandra Mission (SRCM), is listed by the Belge Government in a current list for "harmful Sects". We don't have to get into "justifying" one way or the other. THAT IS A FACT! and is from "secondary sources". The same thing for the French Government Committee's controversial "list" and other such reports by committees. If these lists are then "denounced" by other agencies (UN or other governments), this does not "undo" their having been listed originally, but that "counter" can be added to the article, and attributed to the proper credible agency (UN, Government, courts, etc...)

Either way, we need some ADMIN involvement in this article and not the DELETE proponents of the "Meditators' Cabal" that has infiltrated WIKI and attempts to delete any articles that question any such "sect", be they cults or not. When the leader (or his Master or successor) claims to represents the ONE, the UNITY, (what they call GOD), (from PRIMARY SRCM source) WIKI has to find a way of saying that in a WIKI article...not simply DELETE it or avoid it...When governments, courts, credible newspapers, mention a group or a technique, WIKI must address it and not simple delete or avoid.

PS... It is SRCM since Chari (and his father), the current Master, that this group became targeted as a "secte nuisible". Purchasing castles in Europe did not help their "appearance". The little village of Dole in the Jutra region of France was the European headquarters until their fall from grace with the local population and the french government. Their headquarters is now the Vrads Sande Castle in Denmark.

For the new editors, there is a SRCM (Shahjahanpur) registered in India in 1945 by the Founder, Babuji. And there is a SRCM (Chennai), registered in California in 1997 by Chari, the current Master when he was refuse the Mastership and Presidency of the original Society. He also registered "SAHAJ MARG" as a "Trade Mark" in the US... There is still an pending case in the Supreme Court of India by the family of the founder. Those Societies and the Technique called Sahaj Marg should not be confused and lumped together. We need "dis-ambiguation" to seperate these two "societies", one of which (SRCM Shahjahanpur) registered in India in 1945, and one is (SRCM California) and is the one that was more recently re-registered in California in 1997 by Chari, the current President and Master of SRCM (Chennai) or California...

To the Governments involved, SRCM is one Society, not TWO...And Sahaj Marg, is the technique taught by that Society...There are two of those also but only ONE is a TRADE MARK registered to SRCM (Chennai), registered in California...

Make sense of that mess if you can.... Gimme that OLD TIME religion...it's not as "COMPLICATED"

-))

You gotta laugh because it's not funny!!!

--don (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)4d-don[reply]

Comment Renee when you are so adamant not to see an article about your employer this is a huge contradiction, as such, it is impossible to assume your good faith, for constructing an article you are dead against, same holds true for sethie also. Kindly do NOT disrupt the development process, I will take the community feedback, by filing for RfC about all concerned topics once I am done with it. My work would have been over by now, if your group (Sethie, Marathi_Mulga, duty2love and of course your good self) had not troubled the article so much. Kindly stay away from the article, you have already voted here, nominated here, tagged it for speedy deletion numerous times, Now do not disrupt my effort to understand this cult, and write a balanced article, properly sourced, and as per wikipeia standard. You have done your part, now let me do mine. --talk-to-me! (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The words used in Europe by most government committees and agencies for these "new religions" are "harmful sect", not cult. And rather than getting into describing the "cultish" aspect of these groups (as most religions could be deemed "cults" if described by one or the other of the pro(s) or con(s)), some Europeam government agencies (the Belge Government) simply lists one or two of the main books of the group. The Belgian government site: Centre d'Information et d'Avis sur les Organizations Sectaires Nuisibles CIAOSN http://www.ciaosn.be/ (Organizations "Sectaire Nuisible" tranlates from French as "HARMFUL SECT", not cult)... I am Acadian French and am fluent in French.

In the case of this article, it can be shown that Shri Ram Chandra Mission (SRCM), is listed by the Belge Government in a current list for "harmful Sects". We don't have to get into "justifying" one way or the other. THAT IS A FACT! and is from "secondary sources". The same thing for the French Government Committee's controversial "list" and other such reports by committees. If these lists are then "denounced" by other agencies (UN or other governments), this does not "undo" their having been listed originally, but that "counter" can be added to the article, and attributed to the proper credible agency (UN, Government, courts, etc...)

Either way, we need some ADMIN involvement in this article and not the DELETE proponents of the "Meditators' Cabal" that has infiltrated WIKI and attempts to delete any articles that question any such "sect", be they cults or not. When the leader (or his Master or successor) claims to represents the ONE, the UNITY, (what they call GOD), (from PRIMARY SRCM source) WIKI has to find a way of saying that in a WIKI article...not simply DELETE it or avoid it...When governments, courts, credible newspapers, mention a group or a technique, WIKI must address it and not simple delete or avoid.

PS... It is SRCM since Chari (and his father), the current Master, that this group became targeted as a "secte nuisible". Purchasing castles in Europe did not help their "appearance". The little village of Dole in the Jutra region of France was the European headquarters until their fall from grace with the local population and the french government. Their headquarters is now the Vrads Sande Castle in Denmark.

For the new editors, there is a SRCM (Shahjahanpur) registered in India in 1945 by the Founder, Babuji. And there is a SRCM (Chennai), registered in California in 1997 by Chari, the current Master when he was refuse the Mastership and Presidency of the original Society. He also registered "SAHAJ MARG" as a "Trade Mark" in the US... There is still an pending case in the Supreme Court of India by the family of the founder. Those Societies and the Technique called Sahaj Marg should not be confused and lumped together. We need "dis-ambiguation" to seperate these two "societies", one of which (SRCM Shahjahanpur) registered in India in 1945, and one is (SRCM California) and is the one that was more recently re-registered in California in 1997 by Chari, the current President and Master of SRCM (Chennai) or California...

To the Governments involved, SRCM is one Society, not TWO...And Sahaj Marg, is the technique taught by that Society...There are two of those also but only ONE is a TRADE MARK registered to SRCM (Chennai), registered in California...

Make sense of that mess if you can.... Gimme that OLD TIME religion...it's not as "COMPLICATED"

-))

You gotta laugh because it's not funny!!!

4d-don--don (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the kind of blogging we had to endure on previously deleted pages. Renee (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This would appear to be, yet another attempt to publish derogatory commentary on google via Wikipedia. In fairness, it seems that the "blog content" above that doesnot directly relate to deletion debate should be removed before the page is archived. WP:NOT dictates that Wikipedia is not a webhosting service or publisher of original thought. Cleo123 (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

LIGHTEN UP!! Show GOOD FAITH!! If you can show and display your POV, as you do, allow other editors "HUMOUR". I am not going to take you "seriously" with that attitude!  ;-)) (as per WIKI)

This editor doesn't display "Good Faith" as per WIKI! She displays more "frustration" than "concensus building". Her only approach seems to be to "try and delete" the input of others she does not agree with regardless of the Wiki acceptability of the "content".

This is the kind of confrontational, "non-concensus" building, humourless and "bad-faith" attacks on other editors' "thought-out", rational, and accurate input, we've had to endure since the appearance of this SRCM "DELETE-ski" and the rest of her SRCM "meditator's cabal" Her input has now deteriorated into irrational (as above) "attacks" on many editors she does not agree with, and attempts at re-hashing her own interpretation of the SOURCES and the FACTS...

She is still trying to hide and eliminate the FACTS that were gleened from SECONDARY (government, newspaper, courts, other WEB sites) SOURCES which are WIKI acceptable! If not PRIMARY and SECONDARY sources, then what is WIKI acceptable? Let us ask the WIKI BOARD of DIRECTORS!

Much of my and other editors' info comes from "SECONDARY" (at arm's lenght) Sources such as "GOVERNMENTS, credible (according to court documents and statements by court officials) NEWSPAPERS, COURTS, and WEB SITES as per WIKI policy...

Admin... INPUT please so as to not WASTE OUR TIME countering such "attacks" and "bad faith" as per WIKI...

4d-don--don (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another relevant policy is WP:NPA. I just found these, which are excellent for all of us to review: WP:NUTSHELL and WP:Verifiability and Notability.Renee (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

don, please restrict your commentary to the page under discussion and refrain from making overt personal attacks. Please, note that WP:SOAP applies not only to the User Page under discussion, but to this discussion page, as well. Cleo123 (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment...

Guy..

The subject as well as this "product" has been judged "inappropriate" for mass distribution and consumption also by the founder's family who are currently in [court http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/ac%20661900p.txt), but it is still being SOLD in over 90 countries, so deleting an encyclopedia article about it is like "closing the barn after the horses are out"... "not notable" is what has been stated...Govenrments, courts and newspapers, all at arm's lenght, have found this society worthy of being "NOTED" and have done so.

Researchers will have to find a "real" encyclopedia that covers such "inappropriate" products and subjects free from the hands of the "censors". Until then, the blogs will become the only, well-researched and "independent" information out there! GREAT! Would you believe the BIG "harmful sect" who tries to hide the INFORMATION, or the LITTLE VICTIM who is trying to expose the TRUTH to ALL? Who will you chose? Who would you "TRUST"? The WIKI article should be a "counter-balance" to blogs and the "Public relations". It's not like there's a shortage of Information on a society that claims to have 300,000 followers. NOT NOTABLE eh?

WIKI is correct to classify this a SOAP... when LOGIC is denied, we get "DRAMA" and Theatre...it has all the "ingredients" of a soap according to "SOME" from all sides in WIKI ...

4d-don --don (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All this information is verified on Government, court and Society records (Secondary sources)

For all the new editors, there is a SRCM (Shahjahanpur) registered in India in 1945 by the Founder, Babuji. And there is a SRCM (Chennai), registered in California in 1997 by Chari, the current Master when he was refuse the Mastership and Presidency of the original Society. (All recorded in the Minutes of the Society). He also registered "SAHAJ MARG" as a "Trade Mark" in the US... There is still an pending case in the Supreme Court of India by the family of the founder. Those Societies and the Technique called Sahaj Marg should not be confused and lumped together.

We need "dis-ambiguation" to seperate these two "societies", one of which (SRCM Shahjahanpur) registered in India in 1945, and one is (SRCM California) and is the one that was more recently re-registered in California in 1997 by Chari, the current President and Master of SRCM (Chennai) or California...

To the Governments involved, SRCM is one Society, not TWO...And Sahaj Marg, is the technique taught by that Society...There are two Sahaj Margs also but only ONE is a TRADE MARK registered to SRCM (Chennai), registered in California, in 1997...

4d-don --don (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page was moved to a title that hadn't the person name on the title, and there is a RfD to delete the redirect to prevent google assigning too much weight when searching for the person name. The new location is here --Enric Naval (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]