NOTIFICATION NO.62/2009
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thiru R.S.Ramanathan, Thiru Balasundaram Rajendran,
Thiru Raja Elango, Thiru Duraisamy Hariparanthaman, Thiru
Cyril Thamarai Selvam, Thiru Chinnasamy Swaminathan Karnan,
Thiru Nadesa Gounder Kirubakaran, Thiru M.M.Sundresh, Thiru
Tirunelveli Subbiah Sivagnanam, Thiru M.Duraiswamy, Thiru
T.Raja, Kumari R.Mala, Tmt.Aruna Jagadeesan and Thiru
G.M.Akbar Ali, will be sworn - in as Hon'ble Additional Judges
of the High Court of Madras, by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice
at 1.30 P.M. on Tuesday, the 31st March 2009, at the 5th
Floor Auditorium, Lawyers' Chambers, Phase III, High Court,
Madras. After the swearing - in , there will be a Welcome
Address by the Advocate General. The Bell for the lunch break
will go at 12.30 P.M.
/ By Order /
HIGH COURT, MADRAS : G.CHINNIYA NAIDU
DATED : 30.03.2009 : REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION)
For all your legal requirements, Browse my other websites.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
If you want to vote nobody, use '49-O' provision and vote nobody...
49-O in Constitution of India : I VOTE NOBODY.
Yes, there is a system in our constitution, as per the 1969 Act, in section ” 49-O” that a person can go to the polling booth, confirm his identity, get his finger marked and convey the presiding election officer that he doesn’t want to vote anyone and get the '49-O form, fill it up, hand it over to election officer.
Yes such a feature is available, but obviously these seemingly notorious leaders have never disclosed it.
This is called “49-O”.
Why should you go and say ” I VOTE NOBODY”… because, in a ward, if a candidate wins, say by 123 votes, and that particular ward has received “49-O” votes more than 123, then that polling will be canceled and will have to be re-polled. Not only that, but the candidature of the contestants will be removed and they cannot contest the re-polling, since people had already expressed their decision on them. This would bring fear into parties and hence look for genuine candidates for their parties for election. This would change the way; of our whole political system… it is seemingly surprising why the election commission has not revealed such a feature to the public….
Please spread this news to as many as you know…
Seems to be a wonderful weapon against corrupt parties in India …
show your power, expressing your desire not to vote for anybody, is even more powerful than voting…
so don’t miss your chance. So either vote, or vote not to vote (vote 49-O) and pass this info on…
Use your voting right for a better INDIA
Reference:
Website of Ministry of Law & Justice : http://lawmin.nic.in/ld/subord/cer1.htm : Search for ‘49-O’ in this page
Yes, there is a system in our constitution, as per the 1969 Act, in section ” 49-O” that a person can go to the polling booth, confirm his identity, get his finger marked and convey the presiding election officer that he doesn’t want to vote anyone and get the '49-O form, fill it up, hand it over to election officer.
Yes such a feature is available, but obviously these seemingly notorious leaders have never disclosed it.
This is called “49-O”.
Why should you go and say ” I VOTE NOBODY”… because, in a ward, if a candidate wins, say by 123 votes, and that particular ward has received “49-O” votes more than 123, then that polling will be canceled and will have to be re-polled. Not only that, but the candidature of the contestants will be removed and they cannot contest the re-polling, since people had already expressed their decision on them. This would bring fear into parties and hence look for genuine candidates for their parties for election. This would change the way; of our whole political system… it is seemingly surprising why the election commission has not revealed such a feature to the public….
Please spread this news to as many as you know…
Seems to be a wonderful weapon against corrupt parties in India …
show your power, expressing your desire not to vote for anybody, is even more powerful than voting…
so don’t miss your chance. So either vote, or vote not to vote (vote 49-O) and pass this info on…
Use your voting right for a better INDIA
Reference:
Website of Ministry of Law & Justice : http://lawmin.nic.in/ld/subord/cer1.htm : Search for ‘49-O’ in this page
Saturday, March 28, 2009
14 additional judges for Madras High Court
NEW DELHI: President Pratibha Patil on Thursday appointed 14 Additional Judges to the Madras High Court for two years. They are 11 members from the Bar: R.S. Ramanathan, B. Rajendran, Raja Elango, D. Hari Parandaman, C.T. Selvam, C.S. Karnan, N. G. Kirubakaran, M.M. Sundresh, T.S. Sivagnanam, M. Duraiswamy, and T. Raja and three from the subordinate judiciary, R. Mala, Aruna Jagadeesan and G.M. Akbar Ali. Sworn in may be tentatively on 31st March, 2009.
Monday, March 23, 2009
this attack is replica of earlier incident...
Deja vu-10 years ago, another commission-courtesty Frontline
THE STATES
Blaming the victims
The Justice Mohan Commission's report on the violent death of 17 persons when the police cracked down on a procession of tea estate workers in July 1999 faces criticism from political parties and human rights groups.
S. VISWANATHAN
IN one of the most tragic incidents in the recent history of labour struggles in Tamil Nadu, 17 persons were killed and scores of others injured in Tirunelveli on July 23, 1999 when armed policemen descended on a procession of striking workers of the Man jolai tea estate, brutally beat them up and chased them into the Thamiraparani river (Frontline, August 13, 1999). The incident, which was widely compared with the Jallianwalahbagh massacre, sent shock waves across the State and drew instant prote sts from political leaders and human rights organisations. Equally shocking is the report of the Justice Mohan Commission of Inquiry, which inquired into the incident. The Commission almost gave a clean chit to the police and the district administration. The State government has accepted the report.
ANTONY RAJ
July 23, 1999: Lathi-wielding policemen chase the processionists into the Thamiraparani river.
This is the second time in a year that the State police has been absolved of any blame in an incident of such magnitude. In November 1999, the Tamil Nadu government released the report of the Gomathinayagam Commission of Inquiry, which exonerated the pol ice from the charge of letting loose a reign of terror in the Dalit village of Kodiyankulam in Tuticorin district on August 31, 1995, when All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) leader Jayalalitha was Chief Minister (Frontline, December 24, 1999).
The Justice Mohan Commission, in its report tabled in the State Assembly on November 13 (Frontline, December 8), pins the blame squarely on the "unruly behaviour and aggressive nature" of the processionists and "the total failure" of the political leaders who headed the procession "to control the crowd". It holds that the force used to disperse the procession was "warranted", though the act of the police in chasing the processionists on the river bed "amounts to exercise of excessive force". The inquiry indicts two police officers and a tahsildar for not having been "alive to the responsibilities of the offices held by them", and recommends action against them. Although there was "some excess" on the part of the police, the Commission observes, "I cannot lay the blame at the doors of the police in dispersing the unlawful assembly at Kokkirakulam Road." It says, "At the same time, I cannot also completely absolve the leaders of the political parties who had exhibited an obstinate and defiant att itude." The Commission's description of stone-throwing by the police as a retaliatory act seems to echo what Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi said a day after the incident: according to his information, Karunanidhi said, the police only retaliated when the crowd turned violent and threw stones at them.
The Commission has held that "the eleven (of the 17) deaths due to drowning will fall under the category of accident" and that six others died of "the injuries they received" earlier "on the road" before jumping into the river. The police could not be ch arged with having intended to cause their death, the report says.
THE media gave a graphic description of the violence that occurred on the banks of the Thamiraparani on that Black Friday, with telling photographs. The fact that the victims included two women and a child made the tragedy even more poignant. And the fac t that the victims included 11 Dalits and four Muslims, as also Karunanidhi's attempt to give caste hues to what was essentially a labour dispute involving thousands of tea estate workers, made the two vulnerable sections - Dalits and Muslims - close ran ks.
The procession by the 3,000-odd workers in Tirunelveli town was the culmination of a series of legitimate trade union actions, including a strike, legal measures in labour courts and picketing of government offices. The workers were marching to the Colle ctorate to present a petition to the District Collector demanding, among other things, the release of about 600 workers and their family members who had been detained at the Tiruchi central jail following an earlier agitation. The petition also sought to press the demand for an early settlement of their wage-related dispute with the estate management (Frontline, August 27, 1999)
Leading the procession were S. Balakrishnan, leader of the Tamil Maanila Congress (TMC) in the State Assembly, Dr. K. Krishnaswamy, Dalit leader, member of the State Assembly and president of Puthiya Thamizhagam (the P.T. spearheaded the agitation) and f our TMC legislators, besides local leaders of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Communist Party of India. Members of the Thamizhaga Muslim Aikkiya Jamaath also participated in the procession.
The procession was stopped by the police when it was 50 metres from the Collectorate. The leaders, who came in a jeep, pleaded with the police officials to permit them to enter the Collectorate and meet the Collector. Commotion ensued when a section of t he procession at the rear neared the gate. Subsequently, the processionists and the police threw stones at each other. The police then resorted to caning and burst tear gas shells. This sent the processionists helter-skelter. With the police on three sid es, the only escape route available for the marchers was the river. They ran towards the river in the hope of crossing to safety, but were followed by the police on chase, reports said. The brutal incidents lasted less than half an hour and left 17 perso ns dead. Among the 15 persons who were injured, V. Palani, district secretary of the CPI(M), received serious head injuries.
THE Karunanidhi government first announced by a notification on July 24, 1999 the appointment of K. Karthikeyan, a retired District Judge, as the one-man commission to inquire into "the incidents near the Tirunelveli Collectorate" and submit its report w ithin three months. Three days later this notification was replaced by another, which announced the appointment of Justice S. Mohan, a former Judge of the Supreme Court, to inquire into "the causes and circumstances that led to the use of force by the po lice on the processionists at Tirunelveli on July 23, 1999 and into the causes and circumstances leading to casualties reportedly by persons jumping into the river due to panic."
Krishnaswamy, not satisfied with the way the post-mortem of the victims was done, demanded a second post-mortem, but the Chief Minister rejected the demand. The P.T. leader's efforts to seek the court's intervention in the matter failed.
A number of fact-finding missions comprising human rights activists and leaders of women's movements unanimously concluded in their reports that the police were clearly in the wrong and demanded severe action. An Independent Public Inquest by a team of f our eminent persons - Justice V. Suresh, a retired Judge of the Bombay High Court, V.R. Lakshminarayanan, former Director-General of Police, Tamil Nadu, V. Vasanthi Devi, former Vice-Chancellor of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli, and V. Ka ruppan, a retired senior Indian Administrative Service officer - examined 44 witnesses and perused numerous media reports, photographs and video recordings. It concluded that all the 17 deaths (except that of the child) were caused by trauma prior to dro wning, meaning the drowning that caused the death was "due to fatal beating by the police in the first instance". The team found that the procession was peaceful all along. It faulted the police for attacking the processionists even after they dispersed and chasing them into the river. The brutal lathi-charge was uncalled for, the team said. Two copies of its 266-page report, with photographic evidence, were submitted to the Justice Mohan Commission. (The Commission has made no mention of the report.)
The Mohan Commission, which completed its work in 11 months, held 10 sittings, only three of them in Tirunelveli. The rest were held in Chennai, 600 km away from the scene of occurrence. It received 768 affidavits and examined 53 witnesses. Besides there were also three video cassettes and numerous media reports marked as exhibits by various witnesses.
With this mass of material before it and possibly more at its beckoning, the Mohan Commission could naturally be expected to bring out the truth. But its report, human rights activists say, has more to conceal than reveal. The Commission seems to have re lied more on police and government witnesses to arrive at certain conclusions, they aver. For instance, there was an allegation before the Commission that a section of the processionists indulged in teasing women constables, though the alleged incident f inds no place in the first information report (FIR). Relying solely on the oral testimony of a woman constable and taking as corroborative evidence a general observation in a single newspaper that the processionists abused and heckled the police, the Com mission finds truth in the charge. It rejects the contention that the "molestation" incident has not been published in any other newspaper and even the statement made by the Minister of Law in the Assembly after the incident makes no mention of such a ch arge. The Commission's remark that there was no cross-examination of this crucial witness has been denied by Krishnaswamy's counsel P.V. Bakthavatchalam. It also concedes that no photographic evidence has been produced, but says, "That does not mean that the allegation of molestation is altogether false".
However, while referring to the remark of S. Balakrishnan in his evidence that for the first time in his life he saw policemen stone a procession, the Commission dismisses it as "an exaggerated statement", saying, "There is not a single photograph to sup port this oral testimony." Although there were several photographs published by the print media marked as exhibits, in the "considered opinion" of the Commission "to support the so-called stone-throwing by the police, reliance cannot be placed on these p hotographs". The report says, "A careful perusal of these exhibits does not establish the police indulging in stone-throwing. At best it can be said that the Police were retaliating by indulging in counter stone-throwing..." The photographs include one t hat shows the marchers shielding the leaders in the jeep from flying stones.
The Commission, which, on the basis of oral testimony by a witness, blames the leaders for their failure to restrain the crowd, seems to have ignored the evidence of Palani and others that Krishnaswamy and other leaders had continuously appealed to the p eople to keep calm and maintain peace. However, it has not faulted the District Collector or the Commissioner of Police, who were in the vicinity but did not rush to the trouble spot.
While recommending payment of "an additional compensation" of Rs.1 lakh in the case of six persons, "who were injured on the road" and "met with a watery grave" later, the Commission adds a rider: "Of course, not that they died valiant deaths espousing a cause but they were misguided." A trade union leader said: "Considering the fact that the dead persons were either striking workers or members of their families, this only amounts to vulgarising their deaths."
Going beyond the terms of reference, the Commission makes a "strong plea" for banning political processions and observes, "Such processions belong to the past when the horizon of human rights had not been expanded. The modern era belongs to the common ma n whose human rights have to be respected. Failure to respect such human rights may result in anarchy and in uncivilised behaviour."
HUMAN rights organisations and political parties have deplored the "cover-up exercise" and appealed to the government to reject "this one-sided and biased" report. Addressing a meeting in Tirunelveli on December 23, P. Mohan, CPI(M) member of Parliament, demanded that the government withdraw its acceptance of the report. Henri Tiphagne of People's Watch - Tamil Nadu (Madurai), who represented some of the victims before the Commission, detailed a number of discrepancies in the report and regretted that t he Commission had said nothing about the injuries inflicted by the police on Palani or about the payment of compensation. He said that the video evidence had been "tampered with" by the police. Bakthavatchalam told Frontline that the Commission, w hich saw the police video film, expressed resentment when the film stopped abruptly when the scenes showing police action were to commence and resumed after a break indicating that the relevant portion had been "edited out". There were also before the Co mmission video films such as "Oru Nathiyin Maranam" (incidentally, this film was banned for public screening by the Tamil Nadu government a few months ago) that covered the entire incident. Henry Tiphagne said that they were contemplating further legal measures to bring out the truth and render justice to the victims of the police violence.
Justice H. Suresh told Frontline that it was regrettable that the Commission chose to ignore the findings of the Independent Public Inquest. "The Commission has not even cared to acknowledge its receipt in the report," he said. He said that most of the Commission's findings were "simply baseless" and "contrary to truth". He took strong exception to the recommendation that political processions be banned. "Holding processions" is a democratic right and democracy itself is a human right," Justice Suresh said. "It is shocking" that the Commission should have come out with such an "anti-democratic" recommendation, when the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that holding processions was a fundamental right. "You cannot curb a procession. You can cur b violence," he said. Justice Suresh criticised the findings of the Commission at a public meeting in Chennai.
Lakshminarayanan regretted that the Commission had not suggested the institution of cases in respect of each of the deaths: "Those killed should have been given that dignity at least." Vasanthi Devi said the report had belied the hopes of an impartial in quiry. She said that the Commission had justified the police action on the basis of a "manipulated FIR".
Ravi Kumar, president of the People's Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL), Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, said that the Commission's recommendation to ban political processions was "very dangerous" and that it went "totally against the spirit of the Constitutio n". He said that the report confirmed the general belief that inquiry commissions seldom brought out the truth and that "they only serve the purpose of temporarily preventing people from taking recourse to other means of getting justice".
Posted by T Mohan
THE STATES
Blaming the victims
The Justice Mohan Commission's report on the violent death of 17 persons when the police cracked down on a procession of tea estate workers in July 1999 faces criticism from political parties and human rights groups.
S. VISWANATHAN
IN one of the most tragic incidents in the recent history of labour struggles in Tamil Nadu, 17 persons were killed and scores of others injured in Tirunelveli on July 23, 1999 when armed policemen descended on a procession of striking workers of the Man jolai tea estate, brutally beat them up and chased them into the Thamiraparani river (Frontline, August 13, 1999). The incident, which was widely compared with the Jallianwalahbagh massacre, sent shock waves across the State and drew instant prote sts from political leaders and human rights organisations. Equally shocking is the report of the Justice Mohan Commission of Inquiry, which inquired into the incident. The Commission almost gave a clean chit to the police and the district administration. The State government has accepted the report.
ANTONY RAJ
July 23, 1999: Lathi-wielding policemen chase the processionists into the Thamiraparani river.
This is the second time in a year that the State police has been absolved of any blame in an incident of such magnitude. In November 1999, the Tamil Nadu government released the report of the Gomathinayagam Commission of Inquiry, which exonerated the pol ice from the charge of letting loose a reign of terror in the Dalit village of Kodiyankulam in Tuticorin district on August 31, 1995, when All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) leader Jayalalitha was Chief Minister (Frontline, December 24, 1999).
The Justice Mohan Commission, in its report tabled in the State Assembly on November 13 (Frontline, December 8), pins the blame squarely on the "unruly behaviour and aggressive nature" of the processionists and "the total failure" of the political leaders who headed the procession "to control the crowd". It holds that the force used to disperse the procession was "warranted", though the act of the police in chasing the processionists on the river bed "amounts to exercise of excessive force". The inquiry indicts two police officers and a tahsildar for not having been "alive to the responsibilities of the offices held by them", and recommends action against them. Although there was "some excess" on the part of the police, the Commission observes, "I cannot lay the blame at the doors of the police in dispersing the unlawful assembly at Kokkirakulam Road." It says, "At the same time, I cannot also completely absolve the leaders of the political parties who had exhibited an obstinate and defiant att itude." The Commission's description of stone-throwing by the police as a retaliatory act seems to echo what Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi said a day after the incident: according to his information, Karunanidhi said, the police only retaliated when the crowd turned violent and threw stones at them.
The Commission has held that "the eleven (of the 17) deaths due to drowning will fall under the category of accident" and that six others died of "the injuries they received" earlier "on the road" before jumping into the river. The police could not be ch arged with having intended to cause their death, the report says.
THE media gave a graphic description of the violence that occurred on the banks of the Thamiraparani on that Black Friday, with telling photographs. The fact that the victims included two women and a child made the tragedy even more poignant. And the fac t that the victims included 11 Dalits and four Muslims, as also Karunanidhi's attempt to give caste hues to what was essentially a labour dispute involving thousands of tea estate workers, made the two vulnerable sections - Dalits and Muslims - close ran ks.
The procession by the 3,000-odd workers in Tirunelveli town was the culmination of a series of legitimate trade union actions, including a strike, legal measures in labour courts and picketing of government offices. The workers were marching to the Colle ctorate to present a petition to the District Collector demanding, among other things, the release of about 600 workers and their family members who had been detained at the Tiruchi central jail following an earlier agitation. The petition also sought to press the demand for an early settlement of their wage-related dispute with the estate management (Frontline, August 27, 1999)
Leading the procession were S. Balakrishnan, leader of the Tamil Maanila Congress (TMC) in the State Assembly, Dr. K. Krishnaswamy, Dalit leader, member of the State Assembly and president of Puthiya Thamizhagam (the P.T. spearheaded the agitation) and f our TMC legislators, besides local leaders of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Communist Party of India. Members of the Thamizhaga Muslim Aikkiya Jamaath also participated in the procession.
The procession was stopped by the police when it was 50 metres from the Collectorate. The leaders, who came in a jeep, pleaded with the police officials to permit them to enter the Collectorate and meet the Collector. Commotion ensued when a section of t he procession at the rear neared the gate. Subsequently, the processionists and the police threw stones at each other. The police then resorted to caning and burst tear gas shells. This sent the processionists helter-skelter. With the police on three sid es, the only escape route available for the marchers was the river. They ran towards the river in the hope of crossing to safety, but were followed by the police on chase, reports said. The brutal incidents lasted less than half an hour and left 17 perso ns dead. Among the 15 persons who were injured, V. Palani, district secretary of the CPI(M), received serious head injuries.
THE Karunanidhi government first announced by a notification on July 24, 1999 the appointment of K. Karthikeyan, a retired District Judge, as the one-man commission to inquire into "the incidents near the Tirunelveli Collectorate" and submit its report w ithin three months. Three days later this notification was replaced by another, which announced the appointment of Justice S. Mohan, a former Judge of the Supreme Court, to inquire into "the causes and circumstances that led to the use of force by the po lice on the processionists at Tirunelveli on July 23, 1999 and into the causes and circumstances leading to casualties reportedly by persons jumping into the river due to panic."
Krishnaswamy, not satisfied with the way the post-mortem of the victims was done, demanded a second post-mortem, but the Chief Minister rejected the demand. The P.T. leader's efforts to seek the court's intervention in the matter failed.
A number of fact-finding missions comprising human rights activists and leaders of women's movements unanimously concluded in their reports that the police were clearly in the wrong and demanded severe action. An Independent Public Inquest by a team of f our eminent persons - Justice V. Suresh, a retired Judge of the Bombay High Court, V.R. Lakshminarayanan, former Director-General of Police, Tamil Nadu, V. Vasanthi Devi, former Vice-Chancellor of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli, and V. Ka ruppan, a retired senior Indian Administrative Service officer - examined 44 witnesses and perused numerous media reports, photographs and video recordings. It concluded that all the 17 deaths (except that of the child) were caused by trauma prior to dro wning, meaning the drowning that caused the death was "due to fatal beating by the police in the first instance". The team found that the procession was peaceful all along. It faulted the police for attacking the processionists even after they dispersed and chasing them into the river. The brutal lathi-charge was uncalled for, the team said. Two copies of its 266-page report, with photographic evidence, were submitted to the Justice Mohan Commission. (The Commission has made no mention of the report.)
The Mohan Commission, which completed its work in 11 months, held 10 sittings, only three of them in Tirunelveli. The rest were held in Chennai, 600 km away from the scene of occurrence. It received 768 affidavits and examined 53 witnesses. Besides there were also three video cassettes and numerous media reports marked as exhibits by various witnesses.
With this mass of material before it and possibly more at its beckoning, the Mohan Commission could naturally be expected to bring out the truth. But its report, human rights activists say, has more to conceal than reveal. The Commission seems to have re lied more on police and government witnesses to arrive at certain conclusions, they aver. For instance, there was an allegation before the Commission that a section of the processionists indulged in teasing women constables, though the alleged incident f inds no place in the first information report (FIR). Relying solely on the oral testimony of a woman constable and taking as corroborative evidence a general observation in a single newspaper that the processionists abused and heckled the police, the Com mission finds truth in the charge. It rejects the contention that the "molestation" incident has not been published in any other newspaper and even the statement made by the Minister of Law in the Assembly after the incident makes no mention of such a ch arge. The Commission's remark that there was no cross-examination of this crucial witness has been denied by Krishnaswamy's counsel P.V. Bakthavatchalam. It also concedes that no photographic evidence has been produced, but says, "That does not mean that the allegation of molestation is altogether false".
However, while referring to the remark of S. Balakrishnan in his evidence that for the first time in his life he saw policemen stone a procession, the Commission dismisses it as "an exaggerated statement", saying, "There is not a single photograph to sup port this oral testimony." Although there were several photographs published by the print media marked as exhibits, in the "considered opinion" of the Commission "to support the so-called stone-throwing by the police, reliance cannot be placed on these p hotographs". The report says, "A careful perusal of these exhibits does not establish the police indulging in stone-throwing. At best it can be said that the Police were retaliating by indulging in counter stone-throwing..." The photographs include one t hat shows the marchers shielding the leaders in the jeep from flying stones.
The Commission, which, on the basis of oral testimony by a witness, blames the leaders for their failure to restrain the crowd, seems to have ignored the evidence of Palani and others that Krishnaswamy and other leaders had continuously appealed to the p eople to keep calm and maintain peace. However, it has not faulted the District Collector or the Commissioner of Police, who were in the vicinity but did not rush to the trouble spot.
While recommending payment of "an additional compensation" of Rs.1 lakh in the case of six persons, "who were injured on the road" and "met with a watery grave" later, the Commission adds a rider: "Of course, not that they died valiant deaths espousing a cause but they were misguided." A trade union leader said: "Considering the fact that the dead persons were either striking workers or members of their families, this only amounts to vulgarising their deaths."
Going beyond the terms of reference, the Commission makes a "strong plea" for banning political processions and observes, "Such processions belong to the past when the horizon of human rights had not been expanded. The modern era belongs to the common ma n whose human rights have to be respected. Failure to respect such human rights may result in anarchy and in uncivilised behaviour."
HUMAN rights organisations and political parties have deplored the "cover-up exercise" and appealed to the government to reject "this one-sided and biased" report. Addressing a meeting in Tirunelveli on December 23, P. Mohan, CPI(M) member of Parliament, demanded that the government withdraw its acceptance of the report. Henri Tiphagne of People's Watch - Tamil Nadu (Madurai), who represented some of the victims before the Commission, detailed a number of discrepancies in the report and regretted that t he Commission had said nothing about the injuries inflicted by the police on Palani or about the payment of compensation. He said that the video evidence had been "tampered with" by the police. Bakthavatchalam told Frontline that the Commission, w hich saw the police video film, expressed resentment when the film stopped abruptly when the scenes showing police action were to commence and resumed after a break indicating that the relevant portion had been "edited out". There were also before the Co mmission video films such as "Oru Nathiyin Maranam" (incidentally, this film was banned for public screening by the Tamil Nadu government a few months ago) that covered the entire incident. Henry Tiphagne said that they were contemplating further legal measures to bring out the truth and render justice to the victims of the police violence.
Justice H. Suresh told Frontline that it was regrettable that the Commission chose to ignore the findings of the Independent Public Inquest. "The Commission has not even cared to acknowledge its receipt in the report," he said. He said that most of the Commission's findings were "simply baseless" and "contrary to truth". He took strong exception to the recommendation that political processions be banned. "Holding processions" is a democratic right and democracy itself is a human right," Justice Suresh said. "It is shocking" that the Commission should have come out with such an "anti-democratic" recommendation, when the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that holding processions was a fundamental right. "You cannot curb a procession. You can cur b violence," he said. Justice Suresh criticised the findings of the Commission at a public meeting in Chennai.
Lakshminarayanan regretted that the Commission had not suggested the institution of cases in respect of each of the deaths: "Those killed should have been given that dignity at least." Vasanthi Devi said the report had belied the hopes of an impartial in quiry. She said that the Commission had justified the police action on the basis of a "manipulated FIR".
Ravi Kumar, president of the People's Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL), Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, said that the Commission's recommendation to ban political processions was "very dangerous" and that it went "totally against the spirit of the Constitutio n". He said that the report confirmed the general belief that inquiry commissions seldom brought out the truth and that "they only serve the purpose of temporarily preventing people from taking recourse to other means of getting justice".
Posted by T Mohan
Sunday, March 22, 2009
This is right time to clean our own house...
The Madras High COurt said,
"...It is rather painful to note that some members of the noble profession are printing their photographs in the huge hoardings of political leaders, virtually at the feet of such political leaders, thus indicating that they are associated with such leaders. It also amounts to publicity, which is prohibited under Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules."
(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Chennai/HC-for-action-on-lawyers-featuring-in-ads/articleshow/4297981.cms)
About 20 years ago when I entered in to this noble proffession, I was able to see eminent and efficient lawyers were appointed as public prosecutors and government advocates. That practise was slowly abandoned and the appointments were started made purely on political affiliations.See the senario now. The lawyers can be seen protecting their party leaders (accused or convicted) from crowd before media infront of the courts they are appearing. This practise should be banned and strict action should be taken by the BCI against these lawyers who behave like ranks of their respective party leaders. It is heart sickening to see that lawyers running behind the political bigwigs for some personel gains by loosing their unique and noble identity as a lawyer. They can support particular political ideologies, but atleast dont expose them in public as said above by the High Court.
"...It is rather painful to note that some members of the noble profession are printing their photographs in the huge hoardings of political leaders, virtually at the feet of such political leaders, thus indicating that they are associated with such leaders. It also amounts to publicity, which is prohibited under Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules."
(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Chennai/HC-for-action-on-lawyers-featuring-in-ads/articleshow/4297981.cms)
About 20 years ago when I entered in to this noble proffession, I was able to see eminent and efficient lawyers were appointed as public prosecutors and government advocates. That practise was slowly abandoned and the appointments were started made purely on political affiliations.See the senario now. The lawyers can be seen protecting their party leaders (accused or convicted) from crowd before media infront of the courts they are appearing. This practise should be banned and strict action should be taken by the BCI against these lawyers who behave like ranks of their respective party leaders. It is heart sickening to see that lawyers running behind the political bigwigs for some personel gains by loosing their unique and noble identity as a lawyer. They can support particular political ideologies, but atleast dont expose them in public as said above by the High Court.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Can anyone rely on these media people???????
Only if you are the center of the news you will know the lies of the media circulating around you.
Hindu-5,000 lawyers participated.
Times of India-10,000.
Deccan Chronicle-15,000.
Indian Express - Mammoth rally.
The above are the number games played by the media regarding the Lawyers' Rally for Justice at Chennai on 19.3.2009.
Unfortunately, because to suppress the news of lawyers rally, Saravanabhavan owner's news dominated todays first page of all the news papers.
It is ok, lawyers are not politicians and they don't need any publicity.
But we should remember when ever any sensational(ised) news (Rapes and Murders) published by these medias (Ex.Arushree's case), lets be careful before we believe them.
-vsk.
Orwellian Doublespeak and a Kafkaesque media
Sections of the media which have bent over backwards to placate a State Government which is handing out largesse including and not limited to advertisements have recently demonstrated that they will stoop to any extent to suppress the truth and belittle the movement of lawyers. Earlier front page articles spoke of unexploded petrol bombs being hurled at police jeeps, cops coming to hand over resignations to the Police Commissioner at the High Court campus having their wrists slashed, senior police officers being stripped but being able to send SMSs, the dirty tricks department of the Police found willing partners in their campaign in a section of the media, which was shamelessly indulging in disseminating propoganda as news.
What took the cake was the coverage of yesterday's rally of thousands of lawyers (estimates range from 35,000 and 50,000 participants). Take the Hindu for instance. Unremitting in its disdain for the lawyers struggle for justice and solicitious of police sensitivity and political concern, the Hindu took the leap from the bizarre to the incredible today. Falling over in haste to trivialise the turnout, the Hindu in its online edition initially said that there were 2,000 lawyers in the march, revised it to about 5,000 and by this morning's print edition had reduced it to a few hundreds. We wouldnt be surprised if this is revised downwards to "dozens" by tomorrow's edition. With this latest insult to reader's intelligence, the fall to ignominy was complete. What a change from Mr. N. Ravi's hard hitting editorials and Ms. Malini Seshadri's unflagging criticism of the establishment. We wouldnt be surprised if the Hindu carried a front page interview with Mr. M. Karunanidhi in the manner of Harish Khare's "exclusive" interview with Atal Bihari Vajpayee for no ostensible reason other than the fact that he was the Prime Minister of the Country.
Posted by Mr.T Mohan
Hindu-5,000 lawyers participated.
Times of India-10,000.
Deccan Chronicle-15,000.
Indian Express - Mammoth rally.
The above are the number games played by the media regarding the Lawyers' Rally for Justice at Chennai on 19.3.2009.
Unfortunately, because to suppress the news of lawyers rally, Saravanabhavan owner's news dominated todays first page of all the news papers.
It is ok, lawyers are not politicians and they don't need any publicity.
But we should remember when ever any sensational(ised) news (Rapes and Murders) published by these medias (Ex.Arushree's case), lets be careful before we believe them.
-vsk.
Orwellian Doublespeak and a Kafkaesque media
Sections of the media which have bent over backwards to placate a State Government which is handing out largesse including and not limited to advertisements have recently demonstrated that they will stoop to any extent to suppress the truth and belittle the movement of lawyers. Earlier front page articles spoke of unexploded petrol bombs being hurled at police jeeps, cops coming to hand over resignations to the Police Commissioner at the High Court campus having their wrists slashed, senior police officers being stripped but being able to send SMSs, the dirty tricks department of the Police found willing partners in their campaign in a section of the media, which was shamelessly indulging in disseminating propoganda as news.
What took the cake was the coverage of yesterday's rally of thousands of lawyers (estimates range from 35,000 and 50,000 participants). Take the Hindu for instance. Unremitting in its disdain for the lawyers struggle for justice and solicitious of police sensitivity and political concern, the Hindu took the leap from the bizarre to the incredible today. Falling over in haste to trivialise the turnout, the Hindu in its online edition initially said that there were 2,000 lawyers in the march, revised it to about 5,000 and by this morning's print edition had reduced it to a few hundreds. We wouldnt be surprised if this is revised downwards to "dozens" by tomorrow's edition. With this latest insult to reader's intelligence, the fall to ignominy was complete. What a change from Mr. N. Ravi's hard hitting editorials and Ms. Malini Seshadri's unflagging criticism of the establishment. We wouldnt be surprised if the Hindu carried a front page interview with Mr. M. Karunanidhi in the manner of Harish Khare's "exclusive" interview with Atal Bihari Vajpayee for no ostensible reason other than the fact that he was the Prime Minister of the Country.
Posted by Mr.T Mohan
No media will going to publish this news, because the slipper is thrown on a SC judge and not at Dr.Swamy...
If you believe that a few lawyers accused of hurling eggs at Su. Swamy need to be hanged- shall we now murder litigants because of a hooligan few?.
Read this news:
http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=Five+jailed+for+hurling+slipper+at+SC+judge&artid=PtI0uwmFGSI=&SectionID=b7ziAYMenjw=&MainSectionID=b7ziAYMenjw=&SEO=Asok+Kumar+Ganguly,+Arijit+Pasayat,+Supreme+Court,&SectionName=pWehHe7IsSU=
Five jailed for hurling slipper at SC judge
NEW DELHI: Four women and a man were sentenced to three months imprisonment Friday after one of them hurled a slipper at a Supreme Court judge.
The dramatic incident took place when judges Arijit Pasayat, who clearly was the target, and Asok Kumar Ganguly were hearing a case related to a music school in Mumbai.
A total of seven people associated with the school were standing in front of the judges when one of them suddenly flung the slipper at the judge but missed him.
The shoe attack sparked a furore in the court complex.
Judges Pasayat and Ganguly handed down the sentence for showing disrespect to the court.
Court officials identified three of the women who were sentenced as Leila David, Annet Kotian and Kavita Murali.
Read this news:
http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=Five+jailed+for+hurling+slipper+at+SC+judge&artid=PtI0uwmFGSI=&SectionID=b7ziAYMenjw=&MainSectionID=b7ziAYMenjw=&SEO=Asok+Kumar+Ganguly,+Arijit+Pasayat,+Supreme+Court,&SectionName=pWehHe7IsSU=
Five jailed for hurling slipper at SC judge
NEW DELHI: Four women and a man were sentenced to three months imprisonment Friday after one of them hurled a slipper at a Supreme Court judge.
The dramatic incident took place when judges Arijit Pasayat, who clearly was the target, and Asok Kumar Ganguly were hearing a case related to a music school in Mumbai.
A total of seven people associated with the school were standing in front of the judges when one of them suddenly flung the slipper at the judge but missed him.
The shoe attack sparked a furore in the court complex.
Judges Pasayat and Ganguly handed down the sentence for showing disrespect to the court.
Court officials identified three of the women who were sentenced as Leila David, Annet Kotian and Kavita Murali.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Justice triyumps partly...
SUO MOTU (Taken Up) W.P. (PIL) NO.3335 OF 2009
S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,J.
V.DHANAPALAN,J.
AND
K.CHANDRU,J.
(ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,J.)
In regard to the incidents taken place in the HIgh Court campus on 19th Feb., 2009, a writ petition, W.P.(PIL) NO. 3335/09 was suo motu taken up on 19th Feb., 2009 and detailed orders were passed therein at about 6.40 p.m. Subsequently, certain interim orders were passedon 21st Feb., 2009 followed by order dated 2nd March, 2009, relevant of which will be discussed hereunder.
2. It appears that in the meantime a number of writ petitions in W.P.(Civil) No.94/09 and others were filed before the Supreme Court. Having noticed the submission made by learned counsel, Supreme Court appointed a committee to enquire into the incidents, which happened on 19th Feb., 2009. It was orderd that the terms of reference of the Committee shall be finally decided by the then Acting Chief Justice of the Madras High Corut in consultation with the Advocate General and President of other associations as named therein. It was ordered that the committee, initially, shall consider whether any immediate action against police officers, who allegedly allowed armed policemen to enter into the High Court premises without permission of the then Acting Chief Justice and was requested to submit an interim report. An interim report was submitted, which was referred by the Supreme Court to this Court to decide the action to be taken, if any. With regard to suggestion to appoint a Judicial Commission, this Court was also directed to decide the same.
In view of the report and order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the present Bench has been constituted to hear the matter. In the meantime, a number of writ petitions and criminal orginal petition have beenfiled, which have also been listed before this Bench.
3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of different associations of the High Court submitted that the Court’s order has not been complied with including the undertaking given before the Supreme Court and the committee having not answered the question whether any immediate action to be taken against police officers, who allegedly allowed armed policemen to enter the premises of the High Court without the permission of the then Acting Chief Justice, requested to pass interim order against the police officials.
So far as the committee’s report is concerned, counsel submitted that many factual aspects are incorrect, but even if the finding with regard to police officials are taken into consideration, police excess is evident from the same and that no permission was obtained from the then Acting Chief Justice to enter the premises of the High Court.
4. In this connection, we may only refer to certain orders, which were passed by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court earlier.
This Court, vide order dated 21st Feb., 2009, taking into consideration the damage to the court premises and court halls, observed that action may call for initiation of suo motu criminal contempt proceedings, but the same can be decided after receipt of report calling for the names of persons, who were instrumental in the matter. The Commissioner of POoilce, Chennai and the then Joint Commissioner of Police, North Chennai, who were present on the said date, were directed to file reprt and state as to under whose authority of the High Court they entered the High Court premises to arrest certain accused from the High Court campus and at whose instance order was issued for latti charge by the poloice and swift action force. They were asked to provide the specific names with designation of the officers and constables at whose instance such action was taken. It was observed that on receipt of such report, the Court will decide whether suo motu criminal contempt shall be initiated against the concerned persons.
Subsequently, when Supreme Court up W.P.(Civil) NO.94/09 on 26th Feb., 2009, having noticed the facts, ordered for enquiry by a committee comprising a retried Hon’ble Supreme Court judge, on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu it was submitted that “whatsoever suggested by the High Court or by the Commissioner appointed for that purpose will be complied with fully by the State Government at the earliest”.
5. Inspite of such order passed by this Court and undertaking given before the Supreme Court, no affidavit was filed by the State Government till date. Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State initially asked for time to submit the report and at 2.30 p.m., he submitted an affidavit and a report filed by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai. In the said report, while details of the order passed by one or other Court and the report of the Committee has been referred, at para-16, the following statement has been made:-
“16. I am informed that around 4.00 pm, the stone pelting continued and a few two wheelers and cars were damaged and many police personnel sustained injuries on their head and other vital parts. Head Constable 276 Krishnakumar sustained a grievous stone-hit injury on his testicles, became unconscious and fell down on the ground. The situation was turning grave and the life and security of the general public and the police personnel was in imminent threat. To protect the life and property of the police personnel, the public and others, the Additoinal Commissioner of Police (law & Order) who was the seniormost officer present in the spot, consulted other senior officers in the spot, viz., the Joint Commissioner of Police (North), the Joint Commissioner of Police (Central), the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Flower Bazaar, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Pulianthope and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kilpauk and took the collective decision to declare the assembly as unlawful and to disperse it. Accordingly he directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Flower Bazaar who in turn took measures to disperse the unlawful assembly using minimum force.”
6. Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State referred to the Supreme Court order dated 26th Feb., 2009 and submitted that learned counsel appearing on behalf of various associations requested that all those officers, who are responsible for the incident should be placed under Suspension, but no such relief was granted by the Supreme Court. In this connection, the reply of the counsel appearing on behalf of the association is that, to find out whether any immediate action to be taken against police officers, who allegedly allowed armed policemen to enter the premises of the High Court without the permission of the then Acting Chief Justice, was referred to the Committee for submitted report. The committee’s report being silent on the issue, the matter has been referred back to this Court by Supreme Court vide order dated 6th March, 2009.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and noticed the rival contentions for the purpose of deciding whether any interim order is called for at this stage. It will be evident that this Court, vide order dated 21st Feb., 2009, while observed that action may call for initiation of suo motu criminal contempt proceeding, directed the Commissioner of Police, Chennai and Joint Commissioner of Police (North Chennai) to file a report and state as to under whose authority of the High Court they entered the High Court premises to arrest certain accused from the High Court campus and at whose instance order was issued for latti charge by the police and swift action force. They were asked to give specific names with designation of the officers and constables at whose instance such action was taken. On receipt of such report this Court was to decide whether suo motu criminal contempt was to be initiated against the concerned person. It further appears that before the Supreme Court, on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu, it was undertaken that whatsoever suggestion by the High Court or by the Commission appointed for that purpose would be complied with fully by the State Government at the earliest. It is only today the names of persons have been shown in the affidavit filed by the Commissioner, but it has not been made clear whether any immediate action has been taken against the police officers, who allegedly allowed the armed policemen to enter the premises of the High Court without permission of the then Acting Chief justice.
We may mention that the Supreme Court, while passing order on 26th Feb., 2009, observed “It is an unfortunate incidence. If armed policemen wanted to control any situation like riot, they should have obtained the permission of the Acting Chief Justice and he be kept informed of the situation before entering into the premises of the High Court” Inspite of such observation, nothing brought on record that any permission was sought for from the then Acting Chief Justice or from this Court by the police officials to enter into the premises to allow the entry of latti police into the premises of the High Court and to latti charge.
8. As we find that a prima facie case made out to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the concerned officers, to ensure the State Government to pass appropriate orders, we are of the view that i) Mr.A.K.Viswanathan, IPS, Addl. Commissioner of Police (Law & Order) and ii) Mr.M.Ramasubramani, IPS, formerly Joint Commissioner of Police (North) (Jurisdiction JCP), should be placed under suspension, as they were the persons who were in the helm of the affairs and under whose direct supervision the operation was carried on.
It is needless to say that the lawyers have no right to strike, i.e., to abstain from appearing in the Court in cases in which they hold vakalat for the parties. It is below the dignity, honour and status of the members of the noble profession of law to organize and participate in strike, though it is open to the lawyers to adopt some other mode to protest without interrupting or disrupting the Court proceeding or adversely affecting the interest of the litigants. We, therefore, ask the associations and the Tamil Nadu Bar Council to recall their strike forthwith and resume work.
S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,J.
V.DHANAPALAN,J.
AND
K.CHANDRU,J.
(ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,J.)
In regard to the incidents taken place in the HIgh Court campus on 19th Feb., 2009, a writ petition, W.P.(PIL) NO. 3335/09 was suo motu taken up on 19th Feb., 2009 and detailed orders were passed therein at about 6.40 p.m. Subsequently, certain interim orders were passedon 21st Feb., 2009 followed by order dated 2nd March, 2009, relevant of which will be discussed hereunder.
2. It appears that in the meantime a number of writ petitions in W.P.(Civil) No.94/09 and others were filed before the Supreme Court. Having noticed the submission made by learned counsel, Supreme Court appointed a committee to enquire into the incidents, which happened on 19th Feb., 2009. It was orderd that the terms of reference of the Committee shall be finally decided by the then Acting Chief Justice of the Madras High Corut in consultation with the Advocate General and President of other associations as named therein. It was ordered that the committee, initially, shall consider whether any immediate action against police officers, who allegedly allowed armed policemen to enter into the High Court premises without permission of the then Acting Chief Justice and was requested to submit an interim report. An interim report was submitted, which was referred by the Supreme Court to this Court to decide the action to be taken, if any. With regard to suggestion to appoint a Judicial Commission, this Court was also directed to decide the same.
In view of the report and order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the present Bench has been constituted to hear the matter. In the meantime, a number of writ petitions and criminal orginal petition have beenfiled, which have also been listed before this Bench.
3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of different associations of the High Court submitted that the Court’s order has not been complied with including the undertaking given before the Supreme Court and the committee having not answered the question whether any immediate action to be taken against police officers, who allegedly allowed armed policemen to enter the premises of the High Court without the permission of the then Acting Chief Justice, requested to pass interim order against the police officials.
So far as the committee’s report is concerned, counsel submitted that many factual aspects are incorrect, but even if the finding with regard to police officials are taken into consideration, police excess is evident from the same and that no permission was obtained from the then Acting Chief Justice to enter the premises of the High Court.
4. In this connection, we may only refer to certain orders, which were passed by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court earlier.
This Court, vide order dated 21st Feb., 2009, taking into consideration the damage to the court premises and court halls, observed that action may call for initiation of suo motu criminal contempt proceedings, but the same can be decided after receipt of report calling for the names of persons, who were instrumental in the matter. The Commissioner of POoilce, Chennai and the then Joint Commissioner of Police, North Chennai, who were present on the said date, were directed to file reprt and state as to under whose authority of the High Court they entered the High Court premises to arrest certain accused from the High Court campus and at whose instance order was issued for latti charge by the poloice and swift action force. They were asked to provide the specific names with designation of the officers and constables at whose instance such action was taken. It was observed that on receipt of such report, the Court will decide whether suo motu criminal contempt shall be initiated against the concerned persons.
Subsequently, when Supreme Court up W.P.(Civil) NO.94/09 on 26th Feb., 2009, having noticed the facts, ordered for enquiry by a committee comprising a retried Hon’ble Supreme Court judge, on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu it was submitted that “whatsoever suggested by the High Court or by the Commissioner appointed for that purpose will be complied with fully by the State Government at the earliest”.
5. Inspite of such order passed by this Court and undertaking given before the Supreme Court, no affidavit was filed by the State Government till date. Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State initially asked for time to submit the report and at 2.30 p.m., he submitted an affidavit and a report filed by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai. In the said report, while details of the order passed by one or other Court and the report of the Committee has been referred, at para-16, the following statement has been made:-
“16. I am informed that around 4.00 pm, the stone pelting continued and a few two wheelers and cars were damaged and many police personnel sustained injuries on their head and other vital parts. Head Constable 276 Krishnakumar sustained a grievous stone-hit injury on his testicles, became unconscious and fell down on the ground. The situation was turning grave and the life and security of the general public and the police personnel was in imminent threat. To protect the life and property of the police personnel, the public and others, the Additoinal Commissioner of Police (law & Order) who was the seniormost officer present in the spot, consulted other senior officers in the spot, viz., the Joint Commissioner of Police (North), the Joint Commissioner of Police (Central), the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Flower Bazaar, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Pulianthope and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kilpauk and took the collective decision to declare the assembly as unlawful and to disperse it. Accordingly he directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Flower Bazaar who in turn took measures to disperse the unlawful assembly using minimum force.”
6. Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State referred to the Supreme Court order dated 26th Feb., 2009 and submitted that learned counsel appearing on behalf of various associations requested that all those officers, who are responsible for the incident should be placed under Suspension, but no such relief was granted by the Supreme Court. In this connection, the reply of the counsel appearing on behalf of the association is that, to find out whether any immediate action to be taken against police officers, who allegedly allowed armed policemen to enter the premises of the High Court without the permission of the then Acting Chief Justice, was referred to the Committee for submitted report. The committee’s report being silent on the issue, the matter has been referred back to this Court by Supreme Court vide order dated 6th March, 2009.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and noticed the rival contentions for the purpose of deciding whether any interim order is called for at this stage. It will be evident that this Court, vide order dated 21st Feb., 2009, while observed that action may call for initiation of suo motu criminal contempt proceeding, directed the Commissioner of Police, Chennai and Joint Commissioner of Police (North Chennai) to file a report and state as to under whose authority of the High Court they entered the High Court premises to arrest certain accused from the High Court campus and at whose instance order was issued for latti charge by the police and swift action force. They were asked to give specific names with designation of the officers and constables at whose instance such action was taken. On receipt of such report this Court was to decide whether suo motu criminal contempt was to be initiated against the concerned person. It further appears that before the Supreme Court, on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu, it was undertaken that whatsoever suggestion by the High Court or by the Commission appointed for that purpose would be complied with fully by the State Government at the earliest. It is only today the names of persons have been shown in the affidavit filed by the Commissioner, but it has not been made clear whether any immediate action has been taken against the police officers, who allegedly allowed the armed policemen to enter the premises of the High Court without permission of the then Acting Chief justice.
We may mention that the Supreme Court, while passing order on 26th Feb., 2009, observed “It is an unfortunate incidence. If armed policemen wanted to control any situation like riot, they should have obtained the permission of the Acting Chief Justice and he be kept informed of the situation before entering into the premises of the High Court” Inspite of such observation, nothing brought on record that any permission was sought for from the then Acting Chief Justice or from this Court by the police officials to enter into the premises to allow the entry of latti police into the premises of the High Court and to latti charge.
8. As we find that a prima facie case made out to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the concerned officers, to ensure the State Government to pass appropriate orders, we are of the view that i) Mr.A.K.Viswanathan, IPS, Addl. Commissioner of Police (Law & Order) and ii) Mr.M.Ramasubramani, IPS, formerly Joint Commissioner of Police (North) (Jurisdiction JCP), should be placed under suspension, as they were the persons who were in the helm of the affairs and under whose direct supervision the operation was carried on.
It is needless to say that the lawyers have no right to strike, i.e., to abstain from appearing in the Court in cases in which they hold vakalat for the parties. It is below the dignity, honour and status of the members of the noble profession of law to organize and participate in strike, though it is open to the lawyers to adopt some other mode to protest without interrupting or disrupting the Court proceeding or adversely affecting the interest of the litigants. We, therefore, ask the associations and the Tamil Nadu Bar Council to recall their strike forthwith and resume work.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
RALLY FOR JUSTICE - 19th March 2009
RALLY FOR JUSTICE - 19th March 2009
WHY IS THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM UNDER ATTACK?
Why were 800 armed police positioned at the High Court campus from 2.30 on 19th February?
Why did the police not arrest the 15 miscreant lawyers allegedly involved in egg-pelting inside a Court hall? Why did they create a drama on the 19th Feb. in High Court Campus when all the lawyers had resumed court work?
How can anyone justify brutal attack on women and children, judges and lawyers, court staff, litigants and members of the public inside court halls and outside on the streets?
Did not the police plan the attack and close the High Court gates before the Lathi-charge?
Who were the men in black and white uniforms sent into the Court by the police with clear directions, “Poi adingada” (go thrash them)
How did the police know that the police station would catch fire and remove ammunition and records in advance? Was the fire really caused by “Hooligan” lawyers?
Why did the police suppress from Justice Srikrishna that Police Commissioner was instructed by the Acting Chief Justice to remove Armed Police at 4.20 pm and the Police Commissioner had arrived at High Court by 4.30 pm?
Who gave permission for the entry and assault by the Armed Police, when the High Court did not give permission?
When FIRs have been registered against 300 Lawyers, why have no cases been registered against the police despite clear video proof of their assault on judges and lawyers?
How can there be a fair enquiry when the DIG, Commissioner of Police and IAS officers responsible for the atrocities continue to be in command?
BOYCOTT OF COURTS IS CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
If police can terrorize judges and lawyers inside Courts how can justice be done “without fear or favour” ?
How can the ordinary person get justice in his case against the police or government when the judiciary is threatened by the Government?
Why is the Government refusing to disclose names of officials who ordered the entry of Armed Police despite Courts repeatedly asking for it? Is it not shielding the guilty and interfering with the case?
Does not the Government benefit most when the legal system is paralysed?
The lawyers’ boycott of courts IS AGAINST THE T.N. GOVERNMENT AND NOT AGAINST JUDICIARY.
No provocation by few lawyers – ‘miscreants’ can justify carnage in and desecration of Courts. Any justification would lead to anarchy and lawlessness – will lead to assault on all politicians, government servants, chartered accountants, CEOs of Companies, doctors, policemen etc., because some among them are cheats and corrupt.
Even the British government denounced the Jallianwala Bagh massacre as monstrous and recalled General Dyer.
Why has the T.N. Government not condemned the High Court violence so far?
Remember – the First Indian Civil Disobedience Movement started in 1920 after the Jallianwala bagh massacre of 1919 AND Rabindra Nath Tagore returned his Knighthood in protest.
SUPPORT THE STATEWIDE LAWYERS’ RALLY
AT CHENNAI ON 19.03.2009
JOINT ACTION COMMITTEE OF T.N. LAWYERS
WHY IS THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM UNDER ATTACK?
Why were 800 armed police positioned at the High Court campus from 2.30 on 19th February?
Why did the police not arrest the 15 miscreant lawyers allegedly involved in egg-pelting inside a Court hall? Why did they create a drama on the 19th Feb. in High Court Campus when all the lawyers had resumed court work?
How can anyone justify brutal attack on women and children, judges and lawyers, court staff, litigants and members of the public inside court halls and outside on the streets?
Did not the police plan the attack and close the High Court gates before the Lathi-charge?
Who were the men in black and white uniforms sent into the Court by the police with clear directions, “Poi adingada” (go thrash them)
How did the police know that the police station would catch fire and remove ammunition and records in advance? Was the fire really caused by “Hooligan” lawyers?
Why did the police suppress from Justice Srikrishna that Police Commissioner was instructed by the Acting Chief Justice to remove Armed Police at 4.20 pm and the Police Commissioner had arrived at High Court by 4.30 pm?
Who gave permission for the entry and assault by the Armed Police, when the High Court did not give permission?
When FIRs have been registered against 300 Lawyers, why have no cases been registered against the police despite clear video proof of their assault on judges and lawyers?
How can there be a fair enquiry when the DIG, Commissioner of Police and IAS officers responsible for the atrocities continue to be in command?
BOYCOTT OF COURTS IS CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
If police can terrorize judges and lawyers inside Courts how can justice be done “without fear or favour” ?
How can the ordinary person get justice in his case against the police or government when the judiciary is threatened by the Government?
Why is the Government refusing to disclose names of officials who ordered the entry of Armed Police despite Courts repeatedly asking for it? Is it not shielding the guilty and interfering with the case?
Does not the Government benefit most when the legal system is paralysed?
The lawyers’ boycott of courts IS AGAINST THE T.N. GOVERNMENT AND NOT AGAINST JUDICIARY.
No provocation by few lawyers – ‘miscreants’ can justify carnage in and desecration of Courts. Any justification would lead to anarchy and lawlessness – will lead to assault on all politicians, government servants, chartered accountants, CEOs of Companies, doctors, policemen etc., because some among them are cheats and corrupt.
Even the British government denounced the Jallianwala Bagh massacre as monstrous and recalled General Dyer.
Why has the T.N. Government not condemned the High Court violence so far?
Remember – the First Indian Civil Disobedience Movement started in 1920 after the Jallianwala bagh massacre of 1919 AND Rabindra Nath Tagore returned his Knighthood in protest.
SUPPORT THE STATEWIDE LAWYERS’ RALLY
AT CHENNAI ON 19.03.2009
JOINT ACTION COMMITTEE OF T.N. LAWYERS
Monday, March 16, 2009
Changing skins....
மகராசர்கள் உலகாளுதல் நிலையாம் என நினைவாம்...
உதவாதினி ஒரு தாமதம் உடனே விழி தமிழா...
See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjk4Tbwv6kE&eurl=http://www.orkut.co.in/FavoriteVideos.aspx?uid=2640052298445176492
உதவாதினி ஒரு தாமதம் உடனே விழி தமிழா...
See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjk4Tbwv6kE&eurl=http://www.orkut.co.in/FavoriteVideos.aspx?uid=2640052298445176492
The boycott...
Monday, March 16, 2009
WHY BOYCOTT COURTS?
Independence of judiciary as guaranteed to every citizen by the Constitution of India, means non-interference by the State .
Judges and lawyers cannot function without FEAR if the Government can interfere with course of justice and police enter Courts at will.
The course of litigation against 19th February incidents show that the T.N government is deliberately preventing courts from passing orders.
Lawyers have a Constitutional duty NOT TO participate in Courts until the State Government stops shielding the police officers responsible for the grave Constitutional violation and takes responsibility for the brutal events of 19th February 2009.
The lawyers’ boycott of courts IS AGAINST THE T.N. GOVERNMENT AND NOT AGAINST THE JUDICIARY.
Even the British government denounced Jallianwala as monstrous and recalled General Dyer from the post.
Remember – the First Indian Civil Disobedience Movement started in 1920 after the Jallianwala Bagh incident of 1919 AND Rabindra Nath Tagore returned his Knighthood in protest.
Lawyers in Tamil Nadu will suspend their practice if called upon!
JAI HIND
JOINT ACTION COMMITTEE OF T.N LAWYERS
Posted by Mr.T Mohan
False expectations belied
If Mr. Karunanidhi thought that the ire of the lawyers against the system would translate into a confrontation between the lawyers and the judiciary in Tamil Nadu and that the fact that cases were going to be taken up in Courts would force a section of lawyers to return to court driving a wedge between the united front of lawyers, he must have been disappointed. More than 1000 lawyers wrote to the Registry of the High Court today, informing the Registry that their clients have been informed of their inability to appear in courts on account of the the surcharged atmosphere and the lack of safety to lawyers and judges following the brutal attack on courts by the police on the 19th of February 2009. Lawyers turned up in overwhelming numbers in the High Court campus, not to attend to court, but to provide free legal aid and assistance and enable litigants to appear in courts directly and argue their matters. This must have come like a slap in the face for those who wished to reap reward by fomenting fissure and divide among the lawyers, because all their efforts have only helped to further cement lawyers unity
Posted by Mr.T Mohan
Hundreds of lawyers decide to boycott the Hindu
Hundreds of lawyers ( 400 + by the afternoon of the 16th of March 2009) resolved to boycott sections of media which have continued to spread misinformation and mischievous half truths about the events that took place on
the 19th of February 2009 and the lawyers' struggle for justice thereafter. Taking exception to the shameful manner in which a section of the media has pandered to the state cause and highlighted only partisan views, hundreds of lawyers have resolved to begin their boycott of the sections of the media which has been spiteful and malevolent, beginning with suspending their subscription and support to The Hindu. As and when courts recommence, lawyers resolved to ensure that publication is not effected in many matter, whether civil or company jurisdiction in any issue of The Hindu or the Business Line.
Posted by Mr.T Mohan
Legal Aid Camps inaugurated
Lending a lie to the claim that it is the lawyers who have prevented justice from reaching the litigant public, lawyers commenced legal aid camps pursuant to a decision taken at the Joint Action Committee of all bar associations in the state. Today, several senior advocates like Mr. T.V. Ramanujun, Mr. N.G.R. Prasad and other advocates tendered advice to a number of litigants who came to the High Court campus and received the benefit of the advice.
Notices were drafted, memos settled, and in some cases litigants referred to the legal aid clinics in other districts so that their issues are better addressed.
It is clear that it is not lawyers who prevented courts from functioning. It is police brutality that caused closure of a High Court for 5 days and the subordinate courts in Chennai for more than 10 days, unprecedented in the annals of Indian legal history. The lawyers strike is not intended to be a confrontation with the judiciary, it is to highlight the fact that there is a constitutional crisis in Tamil Nadu.
Posted by Mr.T Mohan
WHY BOYCOTT COURTS?
Independence of judiciary as guaranteed to every citizen by the Constitution of India, means non-interference by the State .
Judges and lawyers cannot function without FEAR if the Government can interfere with course of justice and police enter Courts at will.
The course of litigation against 19th February incidents show that the T.N government is deliberately preventing courts from passing orders.
Lawyers have a Constitutional duty NOT TO participate in Courts until the State Government stops shielding the police officers responsible for the grave Constitutional violation and takes responsibility for the brutal events of 19th February 2009.
The lawyers’ boycott of courts IS AGAINST THE T.N. GOVERNMENT AND NOT AGAINST THE JUDICIARY.
Even the British government denounced Jallianwala as monstrous and recalled General Dyer from the post.
Remember – the First Indian Civil Disobedience Movement started in 1920 after the Jallianwala Bagh incident of 1919 AND Rabindra Nath Tagore returned his Knighthood in protest.
Lawyers in Tamil Nadu will suspend their practice if called upon!
JAI HIND
JOINT ACTION COMMITTEE OF T.N LAWYERS
Posted by Mr.T Mohan
False expectations belied
If Mr. Karunanidhi thought that the ire of the lawyers against the system would translate into a confrontation between the lawyers and the judiciary in Tamil Nadu and that the fact that cases were going to be taken up in Courts would force a section of lawyers to return to court driving a wedge between the united front of lawyers, he must have been disappointed. More than 1000 lawyers wrote to the Registry of the High Court today, informing the Registry that their clients have been informed of their inability to appear in courts on account of the the surcharged atmosphere and the lack of safety to lawyers and judges following the brutal attack on courts by the police on the 19th of February 2009. Lawyers turned up in overwhelming numbers in the High Court campus, not to attend to court, but to provide free legal aid and assistance and enable litigants to appear in courts directly and argue their matters. This must have come like a slap in the face for those who wished to reap reward by fomenting fissure and divide among the lawyers, because all their efforts have only helped to further cement lawyers unity
Posted by Mr.T Mohan
Hundreds of lawyers decide to boycott the Hindu
Hundreds of lawyers ( 400 + by the afternoon of the 16th of March 2009) resolved to boycott sections of media which have continued to spread misinformation and mischievous half truths about the events that took place on
the 19th of February 2009 and the lawyers' struggle for justice thereafter. Taking exception to the shameful manner in which a section of the media has pandered to the state cause and highlighted only partisan views, hundreds of lawyers have resolved to begin their boycott of the sections of the media which has been spiteful and malevolent, beginning with suspending their subscription and support to The Hindu. As and when courts recommence, lawyers resolved to ensure that publication is not effected in many matter, whether civil or company jurisdiction in any issue of The Hindu or the Business Line.
Posted by Mr.T Mohan
Legal Aid Camps inaugurated
Lending a lie to the claim that it is the lawyers who have prevented justice from reaching the litigant public, lawyers commenced legal aid camps pursuant to a decision taken at the Joint Action Committee of all bar associations in the state. Today, several senior advocates like Mr. T.V. Ramanujun, Mr. N.G.R. Prasad and other advocates tendered advice to a number of litigants who came to the High Court campus and received the benefit of the advice.
Notices were drafted, memos settled, and in some cases litigants referred to the legal aid clinics in other districts so that their issues are better addressed.
It is clear that it is not lawyers who prevented courts from functioning. It is police brutality that caused closure of a High Court for 5 days and the subordinate courts in Chennai for more than 10 days, unprecedented in the annals of Indian legal history. The lawyers strike is not intended to be a confrontation with the judiciary, it is to highlight the fact that there is a constitutional crisis in Tamil Nadu.
Posted by Mr.T Mohan
Atleast henceforth lawyers may doneaway with 'milords'...
Times of India-20.4.2006.
NEW DELHI: Their Lordships will henceforth just be their Honours. 'My Lord' and 'Your Lordship', the two phrases used since the British Raj by
lawyers to address judges of the Supreme Court and high courts, have just been confined to history by the Bar Council of India.
In a recent resolution amending the rules, BCI replaced the two most important phrases with 'Your Honour' and 'Honourable Court' saying that words 'My Lord' and 'Your Lordship' are "relics of the colonial past" which need to be weeded out.
In the lower courts, lawyers can address the presiding officers as 'Sir' or the equivalent word in the respective regional languages.
"I welcome it," said Chief Justice of India Y K Sabharwal, who, while heading a bench had recently dismissed a petition filed by a lawyers’ body seeking identical change in the address system.
The CJI had asked the lawyers to approach BCI and build a consensus among advocates for the new system of address, assuring them the court had no problem with it as long as it is dignified.
Will the lawyers, so used to uttering 'Milord' and 'Your Lordship' during their arguments, adopt the new system?
Solicitor General G E Vahanvati said the prevailing system was just fine, reflecting the dignity due to the court and judges.
Supreme Court Bar Association president P H Parekh said amendment of the rules by BCI does not make it mandatory for lawyers to follow the new system of address.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wrote about this in my blog on 29.5.2008.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
How to address Hon'ble Judges of High Courts and Subordinate Courts?
The Bar Council of India long back resolved to done away with the practice of addressing judges as 'My Lords' in high courts and 'your honour' in subordinate courts. Instead the Bar Council of India asked it's members to address the Honble High Court Judges with "your honour" or "honourable court" and subordinate court judges either as 'Sir' or it's regional equivalent as 'Mr Judge'. But even after more then two years passed since the resolution by the Bar Council of India passed the lawyers are in no mood to follow the procedure insisted by their governing body. Even most of the lawyers in the country may not know the resolution passed by their governing body. The Bar Council of India should take steps to send the copy of the resolution to each and every advocates' associations in India to implement the above procedure. It is pity even after sixty years of independence from the 'British Raj' we, the lawyers, are unable to shirk the colonial imprints left by them.
Posted by V.S.Kesavan, Lead Partner, The VSK Law Firm and High Court Advocate. at 1:13 PM 0 comments
Labels: How to address Hon'ble Judges of High Courts and Subordinate Courts?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atleast henceforth lawyers may follow BCI's recommendations:
Times of India:15.3.09
CHENNAI: A day after the Madras high court instructed all courts and judges in Tamil Nadu to decide on cases on merit, even if advocates did not
appear for arguments, the agitating lawyers
have decided to withdraw from cases filed by them on behalf of their clients.
Their decision means that all 'vakalatnamas' (authorisations by clients appointing the lawyers) will be withdrawn, and that courts will have to directly deal with the parties in connection with the cases.
The decision was taken at a meeting of the joint action committee, presided over by RC Paul Kanagaraj, its convenor and president of the Madras High Court Advocates Association, on Saturday.
The meet resolved to indefinitely continue the boycott, and confirmed that a state-level rally of advocates would be held here on March 19.
Perhaps turning their ire on judges, the committee resolved that henceforth advocates would not address judges as 'My Lord'. Citing a Bar Council of India decision, the meet said they would address the presiding officers of courts as either 'Mr Judge' or 'Sir'.
NEW DELHI: Their Lordships will henceforth just be their Honours. 'My Lord' and 'Your Lordship', the two phrases used since the British Raj by
lawyers to address judges of the Supreme Court and high courts, have just been confined to history by the Bar Council of India.
In a recent resolution amending the rules, BCI replaced the two most important phrases with 'Your Honour' and 'Honourable Court' saying that words 'My Lord' and 'Your Lordship' are "relics of the colonial past" which need to be weeded out.
In the lower courts, lawyers can address the presiding officers as 'Sir' or the equivalent word in the respective regional languages.
"I welcome it," said Chief Justice of India Y K Sabharwal, who, while heading a bench had recently dismissed a petition filed by a lawyers’ body seeking identical change in the address system.
The CJI had asked the lawyers to approach BCI and build a consensus among advocates for the new system of address, assuring them the court had no problem with it as long as it is dignified.
Will the lawyers, so used to uttering 'Milord' and 'Your Lordship' during their arguments, adopt the new system?
Solicitor General G E Vahanvati said the prevailing system was just fine, reflecting the dignity due to the court and judges.
Supreme Court Bar Association president P H Parekh said amendment of the rules by BCI does not make it mandatory for lawyers to follow the new system of address.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wrote about this in my blog on 29.5.2008.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
How to address Hon'ble Judges of High Courts and Subordinate Courts?
The Bar Council of India long back resolved to done away with the practice of addressing judges as 'My Lords' in high courts and 'your honour' in subordinate courts. Instead the Bar Council of India asked it's members to address the Honble High Court Judges with "your honour" or "honourable court" and subordinate court judges either as 'Sir' or it's regional equivalent as 'Mr Judge'. But even after more then two years passed since the resolution by the Bar Council of India passed the lawyers are in no mood to follow the procedure insisted by their governing body. Even most of the lawyers in the country may not know the resolution passed by their governing body. The Bar Council of India should take steps to send the copy of the resolution to each and every advocates' associations in India to implement the above procedure. It is pity even after sixty years of independence from the 'British Raj' we, the lawyers, are unable to shirk the colonial imprints left by them.
Posted by V.S.Kesavan, Lead Partner, The VSK Law Firm and High Court Advocate. at 1:13 PM 0 comments
Labels: How to address Hon'ble Judges of High Courts and Subordinate Courts?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atleast henceforth lawyers may follow BCI's recommendations:
Times of India:15.3.09
CHENNAI: A day after the Madras high court instructed all courts and judges in Tamil Nadu to decide on cases on merit, even if advocates did not
appear for arguments, the agitating lawyers
have decided to withdraw from cases filed by them on behalf of their clients.
Their decision means that all 'vakalatnamas' (authorisations by clients appointing the lawyers) will be withdrawn, and that courts will have to directly deal with the parties in connection with the cases.
The decision was taken at a meeting of the joint action committee, presided over by RC Paul Kanagaraj, its convenor and president of the Madras High Court Advocates Association, on Saturday.
The meet resolved to indefinitely continue the boycott, and confirmed that a state-level rally of advocates would be held here on March 19.
Perhaps turning their ire on judges, the committee resolved that henceforth advocates would not address judges as 'My Lord'. Citing a Bar Council of India decision, the meet said they would address the presiding officers of courts as either 'Mr Judge' or 'Sir'.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
who are the hooligans mylord srikrishna?
Courtesy: The Hindu, 3rd March 2009:-
(After the police attack on judiciary).
CHENNAI: The IAS Officers’ Association has urged the government “to take appropriate steps to ensure that all sections of society, police included, have the confidence that they will be treated with demonstrable fairness, and will be entitled to natural justice, equality before law and equal protection of the law.”
The Tamil Nadu IPS Officers’ Association said it could not come out with its views as police were party to the dispute.”
Courtesy: Deccan Chronicle , 11th, March 2009:-
IPS officer’s team beats up a passengerMarch 9th, 2009
By Our Correspondent March 8: An IPS officer from the 2006 batch landed himself in soup after he and his subordinates thrashed an engineer at the Nagercoil railway station on Friday morning.
His seniors have taken up the matter and have asked him for an explanation about the incident, according to sources.
The police team was ‘teaching’ a lesson to the engineer who had the “courage” to argue with the wife of the young IPS official over berth allotment in the train they had travelled on the previous night.
The engineer, working in the Koodankulam power project, had boarded the Kanyakumari Express with his wife, kids and parents, on Thursday evening at Egmore.
The wife of the IPS officer, who was in the same compartment, was not ready to wait till night to use her lower berth.
“She wanted to sleep by 6 pm on Thursday which was objected to by the engineer who told her that she could use the berth for sleeping only after 9 pm and till then the berth would be used by other passengers for sitting,” official sources added.
When the train reached Nagercoil the next morning, a gang of 15 policemen in uniform under the leadership of the IPS official was waiting for him.
They thrashed the engineer in the station and then dragged him away to a police station while the wife of the IPS officer went home in a police vehicle.
(After the police attack on judiciary).
CHENNAI: The IAS Officers’ Association has urged the government “to take appropriate steps to ensure that all sections of society, police included, have the confidence that they will be treated with demonstrable fairness, and will be entitled to natural justice, equality before law and equal protection of the law.”
The Tamil Nadu IPS Officers’ Association said it could not come out with its views as police were party to the dispute.”
Courtesy: Deccan Chronicle , 11th, March 2009:-
IPS officer’s team beats up a passengerMarch 9th, 2009
By Our Correspondent March 8: An IPS officer from the 2006 batch landed himself in soup after he and his subordinates thrashed an engineer at the Nagercoil railway station on Friday morning.
His seniors have taken up the matter and have asked him for an explanation about the incident, according to sources.
The police team was ‘teaching’ a lesson to the engineer who had the “courage” to argue with the wife of the young IPS official over berth allotment in the train they had travelled on the previous night.
The engineer, working in the Koodankulam power project, had boarded the Kanyakumari Express with his wife, kids and parents, on Thursday evening at Egmore.
The wife of the IPS officer, who was in the same compartment, was not ready to wait till night to use her lower berth.
“She wanted to sleep by 6 pm on Thursday which was objected to by the engineer who told her that she could use the berth for sleeping only after 9 pm and till then the berth would be used by other passengers for sitting,” official sources added.
When the train reached Nagercoil the next morning, a gang of 15 policemen in uniform under the leadership of the IPS official was waiting for him.
They thrashed the engineer in the station and then dragged him away to a police station while the wife of the IPS officer went home in a police vehicle.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
PRESS RELEASE (obviously not going to be published by any media)
PRESS RELEASE
(obviously not going to be published by any media)
The State Level Joint Action Committee of bar associations, on behalf of the lawyers of Tamil Nadu, does not accept the interim report of the Justice B.N. Srikrishna Commission. The report is riddled with factual contradictions and inconsistencies.
The incidents in the State over the Srilankan Tamils issue and the caste dimensions of the Chidambaram Temple take over, seem to have clouded the Commission’s approach leading to his condoning the gross constitutional transgression committed by the State Police into the independence of the judiciary. No reason is offered by the Commission for not recommending any action against the police, who even according to the Commission went beserk using excessive force, raining lathi blows, targeting heads of judges, staff, lawyers and litigants and wantonly breaking court property. Even the police assault on a Hon’ble judge of the High Court is dismissed as having been invited by an “unduly brave” judge!
The Commission’s remark that the entry of the armed police into the Court’s premises without the permission of the Chief Justice was merely ‘irregular’, instead of severely castigating such intrusion, makes one recall sadly the now infamous ‘habeas corpus’ judgment when the Supreme Court felt overwhelmed by the declaration of emergency to suspend the ‘right to life’ itself. No ‘provocation’ can provide justification for the police to enter and run riot into courts and the Report if accepted portends dangerous consequences similar to that witnessed in our neighbouring nation when courts were dictated to by a military ruler. The experiences in such countries show that even the gravest of situations cannot warrant an assault on Courts and Judges, independence of the judiciary is a basic feature of our Constitution and the legal community will not allow this to be compromised at any cost.
By the same logic, the observations of the Commission that the Madras High Court has adopted a “Soft Policy” towards the Advocates is most unwarranted, when the High Court has taken all steps in accordance with law in taking action on specific complaints received against any Advocate. The commission consisting of a retired judge of a Supreme Court exceeded its limits in criticizing the
functioning of the High Court, a Constitutional authority, which is in poor taste.
The Commission’s justification of the presence of armed policemen in the Court campus and the use of force based on the order of the High Court dated 2/02/2007 in W.P.No.3197 of 2002, makes a mockery of the High Court’s order which actually directed police to ensure protection of the heritage building and its precincts by permanent security presence and not its desecration. The ghastliness of the police action is heightened by the fact that no public announcement was made that there was an unlawful assembly of lawyers and that they should disperse. The carnage in the High Court was similar to “Jalianwalabagh” and the Commission does not even advert to the absence of the mandatory “warning” by the police.
The report relies entirely on the police version and video recordings on the specious reasoning that it had recording of the time while the evidence provided by the lawyers had no time line. No reference is made to statements given by judges, staff, litigants and lawyers, which admittedly the Commission had gathered. We understand that the video provided by the police was doctored.
While TV channels all over the State showed Justice Arumuga Perumal Adityan pleading with the police not to assault the lawyers, the Commission refers only to the police version.
The Commission says that the “official” video did not show the presence of the Commissioner of Police till about 05.14 p.m on 19/02/2009 and that there was lathi charge only at 5.46 pm. The Police has suppressed from the Commission F.I.R No.15/2009 registered on 19.02.2009 at the B-4 Police Station, High Court premises at about 7.20 p.m. on information provided by C.Jayakodi, Inspector of Police (Crime) Esplanade Police Station, which says that the police started the lathi charge at 3.30 p.m. on orders from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Flower Bazaar. According to the FIR, the Commissioner of Police K. Radhakrishnan was in the High Court at 4.30 p.m. There is evidence to show the Commissioner of Police was present at the time Mr. Justice Arumugha Perumal Adityan was assaulted, which according to the police themselves is around 4.30 p.m. The Commission thus committed a grave error in exonerating the Commissioner of Police on the mistaken view that he was present only after 5.15pm.
The observation of the Commission that the ‘mob of lawyers’ set fire to the Police station is clearly questionable, since the crowd at that time is clearly seen consisting of policemen in black and white uniform and coloured clothes and most lawyers had already taken shelter inside court-halls, having suffered severe lathi blows. The Commission makes no reference to the fact that there was no announcement by the police that there was an “unlawful assembly” of lawyers and that they should disperse.
The Report reads as if the Lathicharge commenced only after the fire accident at the police station, but the whole world saw ‘live’ on TV channels that the lathicharge commenced at 3.30 p.m. and that the fire accident happened only after nearly two hours of lathicharge.
The language used by Mr. B.N. Srikrishna to describe lawyers – “miscreants” “hooligans” ”minatory mob” “fat lawyer” does no justice to the gravity of the incidents and the seriousness of the enquiry. The lawyers confronted by a large posse of stone throwing armed police could hardly be expected not to retaliate in self defence.
If the Commission had even noticed the video recording played to him by the lawyers, the “fat lawyer”, could be seen peacefully pleading with the police not to throw stones, pleading with his colleagues not to retaliate, waving his white shirt as a peace flag and ultimately approaching the police and arguing with them as only a true Gandhian could, he would not have remarked about his size alone but would have been impressed by the weight of his courage.
Given the short time at his disposal, the Commission could not have come to any conclusive determination of the veracity of the evidence provided by the police which were not even provided to the lawyers. When the Commission did not intend to continue its enquiry, it should have refrained from making defamatory statements against lawyers gathered solely from the police video.
Unfortunately, the State Government has evaded answering the question posed by the Supreme Court of India and the High Court “Who authorized the entry of armed policemen and who authorized the lathi charge”. The reluctance of the State government in answering this question before the High Court or the Supreme Court and before the Commission is a clear pointer to the complicity of the State and the fact that the assault on the judicial institution was a preplanned and predetermined one.
The T.N. lawyers will continue to struggle to restore Rule of law and to oppose the Police raj in the State.
(obviously not going to be published by any media)
The State Level Joint Action Committee of bar associations, on behalf of the lawyers of Tamil Nadu, does not accept the interim report of the Justice B.N. Srikrishna Commission. The report is riddled with factual contradictions and inconsistencies.
The incidents in the State over the Srilankan Tamils issue and the caste dimensions of the Chidambaram Temple take over, seem to have clouded the Commission’s approach leading to his condoning the gross constitutional transgression committed by the State Police into the independence of the judiciary. No reason is offered by the Commission for not recommending any action against the police, who even according to the Commission went beserk using excessive force, raining lathi blows, targeting heads of judges, staff, lawyers and litigants and wantonly breaking court property. Even the police assault on a Hon’ble judge of the High Court is dismissed as having been invited by an “unduly brave” judge!
The Commission’s remark that the entry of the armed police into the Court’s premises without the permission of the Chief Justice was merely ‘irregular’, instead of severely castigating such intrusion, makes one recall sadly the now infamous ‘habeas corpus’ judgment when the Supreme Court felt overwhelmed by the declaration of emergency to suspend the ‘right to life’ itself. No ‘provocation’ can provide justification for the police to enter and run riot into courts and the Report if accepted portends dangerous consequences similar to that witnessed in our neighbouring nation when courts were dictated to by a military ruler. The experiences in such countries show that even the gravest of situations cannot warrant an assault on Courts and Judges, independence of the judiciary is a basic feature of our Constitution and the legal community will not allow this to be compromised at any cost.
By the same logic, the observations of the Commission that the Madras High Court has adopted a “Soft Policy” towards the Advocates is most unwarranted, when the High Court has taken all steps in accordance with law in taking action on specific complaints received against any Advocate. The commission consisting of a retired judge of a Supreme Court exceeded its limits in criticizing the
functioning of the High Court, a Constitutional authority, which is in poor taste.
The Commission’s justification of the presence of armed policemen in the Court campus and the use of force based on the order of the High Court dated 2/02/2007 in W.P.No.3197 of 2002, makes a mockery of the High Court’s order which actually directed police to ensure protection of the heritage building and its precincts by permanent security presence and not its desecration. The ghastliness of the police action is heightened by the fact that no public announcement was made that there was an unlawful assembly of lawyers and that they should disperse. The carnage in the High Court was similar to “Jalianwalabagh” and the Commission does not even advert to the absence of the mandatory “warning” by the police.
The report relies entirely on the police version and video recordings on the specious reasoning that it had recording of the time while the evidence provided by the lawyers had no time line. No reference is made to statements given by judges, staff, litigants and lawyers, which admittedly the Commission had gathered. We understand that the video provided by the police was doctored.
While TV channels all over the State showed Justice Arumuga Perumal Adityan pleading with the police not to assault the lawyers, the Commission refers only to the police version.
The Commission says that the “official” video did not show the presence of the Commissioner of Police till about 05.14 p.m on 19/02/2009 and that there was lathi charge only at 5.46 pm. The Police has suppressed from the Commission F.I.R No.15/2009 registered on 19.02.2009 at the B-4 Police Station, High Court premises at about 7.20 p.m. on information provided by C.Jayakodi, Inspector of Police (Crime) Esplanade Police Station, which says that the police started the lathi charge at 3.30 p.m. on orders from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Flower Bazaar. According to the FIR, the Commissioner of Police K. Radhakrishnan was in the High Court at 4.30 p.m. There is evidence to show the Commissioner of Police was present at the time Mr. Justice Arumugha Perumal Adityan was assaulted, which according to the police themselves is around 4.30 p.m. The Commission thus committed a grave error in exonerating the Commissioner of Police on the mistaken view that he was present only after 5.15pm.
The observation of the Commission that the ‘mob of lawyers’ set fire to the Police station is clearly questionable, since the crowd at that time is clearly seen consisting of policemen in black and white uniform and coloured clothes and most lawyers had already taken shelter inside court-halls, having suffered severe lathi blows. The Commission makes no reference to the fact that there was no announcement by the police that there was an “unlawful assembly” of lawyers and that they should disperse.
The Report reads as if the Lathicharge commenced only after the fire accident at the police station, but the whole world saw ‘live’ on TV channels that the lathicharge commenced at 3.30 p.m. and that the fire accident happened only after nearly two hours of lathicharge.
The language used by Mr. B.N. Srikrishna to describe lawyers – “miscreants” “hooligans” ”minatory mob” “fat lawyer” does no justice to the gravity of the incidents and the seriousness of the enquiry. The lawyers confronted by a large posse of stone throwing armed police could hardly be expected not to retaliate in self defence.
If the Commission had even noticed the video recording played to him by the lawyers, the “fat lawyer”, could be seen peacefully pleading with the police not to throw stones, pleading with his colleagues not to retaliate, waving his white shirt as a peace flag and ultimately approaching the police and arguing with them as only a true Gandhian could, he would not have remarked about his size alone but would have been impressed by the weight of his courage.
Given the short time at his disposal, the Commission could not have come to any conclusive determination of the veracity of the evidence provided by the police which were not even provided to the lawyers. When the Commission did not intend to continue its enquiry, it should have refrained from making defamatory statements against lawyers gathered solely from the police video.
Unfortunately, the State Government has evaded answering the question posed by the Supreme Court of India and the High Court “Who authorized the entry of armed policemen and who authorized the lathi charge”. The reluctance of the State government in answering this question before the High Court or the Supreme Court and before the Commission is a clear pointer to the complicity of the State and the fact that the assault on the judicial institution was a preplanned and predetermined one.
The T.N. lawyers will continue to struggle to restore Rule of law and to oppose the Police raj in the State.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
A Lament for democracy. A letter from a lawyer…
A Lament for democracy
A letter from a lawyer…
February 19th was the start of the worst crisis this Bar has seen so far.
It has also been the start of a phase of never-before-seen unity amongst
the Bar. Let us face it, it also has shocked us to see the lack of public and media support we have……………………………………………………….
Yet, the cause we are fighting for is one of the fundamentals that keep a
democracy vibrant. For those amongst the public who talk of degradation of
values and “advocates hooliganism”, we ask the Citizenry – and do not
think ‘Citizenry’ comprises of just the well connected amongst you, who
can pick up your phones and call a bureaucrat or a political player to
help you when you are in trouble, but the real ‘Citizenry’, the common man
who has no bureaucratic or political god-fathers – we ask you to sit back
and think if any of you have ever been able to walk into a police station
and come out with your dignity intact; we ask you to think of those times
you felt helpless when the government of the day wanted to take your
Marina beach and make it into a government building; we ask you to think
of those times when your kids or maidservants families have been picked up
for “questioning” and detained without an arrest for days together; we ask
you to think of house demolition notices with 24 hours notice; cricket
matches being held under huge wasteful wattage when your kids do not have
the electricity to study for her exams; all your hard saved money
invested in a small one-ground property somewhere which takes the fancy of
the local politician who sends his men to squat on your property; of women
visiting their husbands in jail being raped by the custodians – we ask you
to think of those of us who have worn the black robes to keep asking the
government questions, to challenge them into positive action, to ensure
that power never becomes absolute because while power itself corrupts, god
save us from a situation where absolute power corrupts absolutely.
This is not an appeal for your sympathy for the cause we are fighting for
– we can’t blame you for thinking it is “the lawyers cause’ – yes, it is
difficult to think independently when leading Chennai newspapers actively
and aggressively followed a “blame the lawyers” strategy. But you must
know that 6 judges of the Madras High Court were assaulted, clients who
had come to the High Court campus were beaten up, un-involved and innocent lawyers sitting inside their offices 500 metres away were beaten up, the judicial chambers were treated with contempt, the Acting Chief Justice’s
calls to the Commissioner of Police were not responded to, women lawyers
sitting inside the court halls on the second floor of the city courts were
beaten up, lawyers who went to protect the judges were beaten up – now
tell me, do you want the judges who decide your matters against the
government to decide with the fear of punishment by the government? Do you want judges to start fearing the government? And do you want lawyers to meekly submit to all the Affidavits filed by the government in your cases?
This is the Issue.
Even the Srikrishna committee report that enquired into the incident categorically finds that the Police action was excessive,
disproportionate, targeted at the entire community and not just the
miscreants. The Report says that the Police action is “utterly
despicable and needs to be roundly condemned”. The Report says “it was as
if the police force, as a body went beserk… The Police did not spare the
children’s crèche also from the hail of stones. Luckily however no child
was injured though it did traumatize some of the children in the crèche
and the ayah’s attending to them”. For some reason however, the media and
public opinion choose to read selectively the Report as though the lawyer
community is at blame.
Believe me, for those of us used to cracking those ‘lawyer jokes’ let us
think again before laughing at them. Because on 19th Feb I took a long
look at my profession and felt a deep sense of pride. I belonged to a noble cause.
Yes, there have been black sheep – pray, tell me where there have not
been? Engineers who use substandard material to build bridges that
collapse, doctors involved in sex rackets and organ-stealing, teachers
involved in child abuse, bureaucrats who push the files that help people
siphon off constituency funds, policemen who gangrape and collect hafta,
bankers who give away public money to the undeserving business and never
collect it back, chartered accountants who cause investors to lose money
on a Satyam scam, stock brokers who can ruin families with their scams,
NGO’s who use the pretence of public work to route in foreign money with
an agenda; politicians who whip up mass hysteria for votes – tell me,
where do you not have black sheep and degradation? And yes, we do need to
clean up our act and set our own house in order, just like most
professions do.
Can we therefore condemn the entire class of those professions and beat them up? Now, that has been what has happened – “let us teach these lawyers and judges and the entire legal system a lesson” – with this
agenda some men in uniform, and ordered by some politician, targeted an
entire community. And like the Germans watched on while the Holocaust
happened – are you sitting back and watching?
Remember, somebody had said – “when they came to get someone down the
street, I just watched; when they came to get my neighbour, I just
watched; then they came to get me….”
Remember Emergency has happened – in this very county – not too long ago.
Remember democracy requires you to protect your judicial institutions –
because that is the check and balance that ensures that absolute power
does not corrupt absolutely.
JaiHind!
Elizabeth Seshadri
A letter from a lawyer…
February 19th was the start of the worst crisis this Bar has seen so far.
It has also been the start of a phase of never-before-seen unity amongst
the Bar. Let us face it, it also has shocked us to see the lack of public and media support we have……………………………………………………….
Yet, the cause we are fighting for is one of the fundamentals that keep a
democracy vibrant. For those amongst the public who talk of degradation of
values and “advocates hooliganism”, we ask the Citizenry – and do not
think ‘Citizenry’ comprises of just the well connected amongst you, who
can pick up your phones and call a bureaucrat or a political player to
help you when you are in trouble, but the real ‘Citizenry’, the common man
who has no bureaucratic or political god-fathers – we ask you to sit back
and think if any of you have ever been able to walk into a police station
and come out with your dignity intact; we ask you to think of those times
you felt helpless when the government of the day wanted to take your
Marina beach and make it into a government building; we ask you to think
of those times when your kids or maidservants families have been picked up
for “questioning” and detained without an arrest for days together; we ask
you to think of house demolition notices with 24 hours notice; cricket
matches being held under huge wasteful wattage when your kids do not have
the electricity to study for her exams; all your hard saved money
invested in a small one-ground property somewhere which takes the fancy of
the local politician who sends his men to squat on your property; of women
visiting their husbands in jail being raped by the custodians – we ask you
to think of those of us who have worn the black robes to keep asking the
government questions, to challenge them into positive action, to ensure
that power never becomes absolute because while power itself corrupts, god
save us from a situation where absolute power corrupts absolutely.
This is not an appeal for your sympathy for the cause we are fighting for
– we can’t blame you for thinking it is “the lawyers cause’ – yes, it is
difficult to think independently when leading Chennai newspapers actively
and aggressively followed a “blame the lawyers” strategy. But you must
know that 6 judges of the Madras High Court were assaulted, clients who
had come to the High Court campus were beaten up, un-involved and innocent lawyers sitting inside their offices 500 metres away were beaten up, the judicial chambers were treated with contempt, the Acting Chief Justice’s
calls to the Commissioner of Police were not responded to, women lawyers
sitting inside the court halls on the second floor of the city courts were
beaten up, lawyers who went to protect the judges were beaten up – now
tell me, do you want the judges who decide your matters against the
government to decide with the fear of punishment by the government? Do you want judges to start fearing the government? And do you want lawyers to meekly submit to all the Affidavits filed by the government in your cases?
This is the Issue.
Even the Srikrishna committee report that enquired into the incident categorically finds that the Police action was excessive,
disproportionate, targeted at the entire community and not just the
miscreants. The Report says that the Police action is “utterly
despicable and needs to be roundly condemned”. The Report says “it was as
if the police force, as a body went beserk… The Police did not spare the
children’s crèche also from the hail of stones. Luckily however no child
was injured though it did traumatize some of the children in the crèche
and the ayah’s attending to them”. For some reason however, the media and
public opinion choose to read selectively the Report as though the lawyer
community is at blame.
Believe me, for those of us used to cracking those ‘lawyer jokes’ let us
think again before laughing at them. Because on 19th Feb I took a long
look at my profession and felt a deep sense of pride. I belonged to a noble cause.
Yes, there have been black sheep – pray, tell me where there have not
been? Engineers who use substandard material to build bridges that
collapse, doctors involved in sex rackets and organ-stealing, teachers
involved in child abuse, bureaucrats who push the files that help people
siphon off constituency funds, policemen who gangrape and collect hafta,
bankers who give away public money to the undeserving business and never
collect it back, chartered accountants who cause investors to lose money
on a Satyam scam, stock brokers who can ruin families with their scams,
NGO’s who use the pretence of public work to route in foreign money with
an agenda; politicians who whip up mass hysteria for votes – tell me,
where do you not have black sheep and degradation? And yes, we do need to
clean up our act and set our own house in order, just like most
professions do.
Can we therefore condemn the entire class of those professions and beat them up? Now, that has been what has happened – “let us teach these lawyers and judges and the entire legal system a lesson” – with this
agenda some men in uniform, and ordered by some politician, targeted an
entire community. And like the Germans watched on while the Holocaust
happened – are you sitting back and watching?
Remember, somebody had said – “when they came to get someone down the
street, I just watched; when they came to get my neighbour, I just
watched; then they came to get me….”
Remember Emergency has happened – in this very county – not too long ago.
Remember democracy requires you to protect your judicial institutions –
because that is the check and balance that ensures that absolute power
does not corrupt absolutely.
JaiHind!
Elizabeth Seshadri
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Justice Sri Krishna Report - Unequal treatment...
Hi,
First half of the report has described about the unruly activities of the pro LTTE lawyers and other politically affiliated lawyers. Their act was already condemned by most of the senior lawyers. Even most of the lawyers were not supporting the boycott before 18.2.09. That's why the boycott was withdrawn from 19.2.09 and resumed work. Therefore, nobody prevent the action against the errant lawyers.
The question is, why under the guise of action against errant lawyers the judiciary was attacked?
After reading the Justice.Sri Krishna report, the SC condemns the CJ of Madras HC for acted in softened manner against the lawyers.
Now read the following portion in Justice.Sri Krishna report:
"...Once the policemen were given the order to lathi
charge the unruly mob of lawyers to quell them, it would appear
that the -police interpreted it as a license to unleash mayhem at
will. They chased the lawyers on the ground floor, along the
corridors on the first floor and beat them up mercilessly. The
policemen behaved in the same fashion as the unruly mob of
lawyers. The exchange of stones between the lawyers and the
policemen continued unabated. The policemen who undoubtedly
had lawful authority to subdue the rioting mob, are seen using
force disproportionate to the occasion and even after some of the
rioters had actually been overpowered and apprehended. They
continued to lash out lathi blows' on the lawyers apprehended by
them. They threw stones at the lawyers, at the window panes of
the Court premises, and also indulged in wanton destruction of and
damage to the vehicles parked in the High Court premises. They
chased the lawyers into the Court premises along the corridors
and also on the first floor of the Court premises hitting blindly at
them with lathis. Despite instructions that during a lathi charge
the lathi blow should be aimed at parts of the body other than the
head, the police freely rained lathi blows on the heads of the
lawyers, causing head injuries to a number of lawyers. There was
plenty of blood shed in the quadrangle, along the corridors and
also inside the office premises where the police appeared to have
entered apparently to look for the rioters. The police barged into
the court rooms of the Judges of the Small Causes Court and
family court within the High Court complex and indulged in
deliberate destruction of the tables, chairs, fans, computers and
other articles within the Court premises. When I went round the
premises of the High Court complex for inspection, . I noticed
extensive damage to the Court's properties as glass panes were
smashed, the doors of the Xerox machine room were smashed,
one Xerox machine was damaged, one Computer was damaged,
and fan blades at one place were twisted out of shape. The court
staff were unanimous that all this damage was inflicted by the
policemen. The police did not spare the children's creche also from
the hail of stones. Luckily, however, no child was injured though it
did traumatize some of the children in the creche and the ayahs
attending to them.
Not satisfied with beating up the lawyers within the
Court premises, the rampaging police staff systematically ran
through the chambers of lawyers within the High Court premises
causing wanton damage to the premises, pulling out suspected
lawyers and beating them. They also went to the lawyers'
Chambers situated on the Lingi Chetty Street, Thambu Chetty
Street, Armenian Street, Sungurama Chetty Street, Kondichetty
Street and Baker Street in the vicinity of the High Court,
systematically barged into such of the lawyers chambers which
were openand caused damage and beat up some of the lawyers
within. Even lady lawyers were not spared.
There is no doubt that the violence was started by the
unruly mob of lawyers, some of whom were even dressed in robes
and bands, but once the police got into action, there was no
stopping them. It was as if the police force, as a body, went
berserk. The lathi charge continued irrespective of whether a
lawyer was a miscreant or otherwise. The overzealousness of the
police resulted in their beating up a Despatch Peon, some other
court staff, a canteen boy and even assaulting on the head an
Hon'ble Judge of the High Court namely, Justice. Arumuga
Perumal Adithyan The videos show that Justice Arumuga Perumal
Adithyan, who was somewhat unduly brave in going to the
forefront of the rioting mob of lawyers clashing with the police, tried
to appeal to both sides to maintain calm and behave with the
dignity befitting the Chartered High Court. Neither side seems to
have paid heed to him. In the melee, while ' lathis were being
swung at the lawyers, one lathi blow from behind landed on the
head of the Hon'ble Judge. The video shows something
interesting. While being carried to the ambulance, the Hon'ble
Judge is heard, appealing not to the police, but to the lawyers, and
saying: "don't throw stones at the police, they are our protectors".
On the 19th February 2009, when the incident became
serious, some of the lawyers rushed to the Chamber of the
Learned Acting Chief Justice to apprise him.of the developments.
The Learned Acting Chief Justice and other Judges and the
Registry attempted to contact the Director General of Police and
the Commissioner of Police, but they were unable to contact them
for a long time. Finally, when the Commissioner of Police was
contacted, he assured that he would come to the. spot and ensu. re
withdrawal of the police. The Acting Chief Justice was emphatic
that all police personnel should be withdrawn from the High Court
premises and they were withdrawn, although some of the lawyers
continued to hold dharna inside even after 19th February 2009."
Now my question is, Why the SC acted in softened manner against the above acts of the police?.
The days are not far away for what happened to HC to happen to SC.
First half of the report has described about the unruly activities of the pro LTTE lawyers and other politically affiliated lawyers. Their act was already condemned by most of the senior lawyers. Even most of the lawyers were not supporting the boycott before 18.2.09. That's why the boycott was withdrawn from 19.2.09 and resumed work. Therefore, nobody prevent the action against the errant lawyers.
The question is, why under the guise of action against errant lawyers the judiciary was attacked?
After reading the Justice.Sri Krishna report, the SC condemns the CJ of Madras HC for acted in softened manner against the lawyers.
Now read the following portion in Justice.Sri Krishna report:
"...Once the policemen were given the order to lathi
charge the unruly mob of lawyers to quell them, it would appear
that the -police interpreted it as a license to unleash mayhem at
will. They chased the lawyers on the ground floor, along the
corridors on the first floor and beat them up mercilessly. The
policemen behaved in the same fashion as the unruly mob of
lawyers. The exchange of stones between the lawyers and the
policemen continued unabated. The policemen who undoubtedly
had lawful authority to subdue the rioting mob, are seen using
force disproportionate to the occasion and even after some of the
rioters had actually been overpowered and apprehended. They
continued to lash out lathi blows' on the lawyers apprehended by
them. They threw stones at the lawyers, at the window panes of
the Court premises, and also indulged in wanton destruction of and
damage to the vehicles parked in the High Court premises. They
chased the lawyers into the Court premises along the corridors
and also on the first floor of the Court premises hitting blindly at
them with lathis. Despite instructions that during a lathi charge
the lathi blow should be aimed at parts of the body other than the
head, the police freely rained lathi blows on the heads of the
lawyers, causing head injuries to a number of lawyers. There was
plenty of blood shed in the quadrangle, along the corridors and
also inside the office premises where the police appeared to have
entered apparently to look for the rioters. The police barged into
the court rooms of the Judges of the Small Causes Court and
family court within the High Court complex and indulged in
deliberate destruction of the tables, chairs, fans, computers and
other articles within the Court premises. When I went round the
premises of the High Court complex for inspection, . I noticed
extensive damage to the Court's properties as glass panes were
smashed, the doors of the Xerox machine room were smashed,
one Xerox machine was damaged, one Computer was damaged,
and fan blades at one place were twisted out of shape. The court
staff were unanimous that all this damage was inflicted by the
policemen. The police did not spare the children's creche also from
the hail of stones. Luckily, however, no child was injured though it
did traumatize some of the children in the creche and the ayahs
attending to them.
Not satisfied with beating up the lawyers within the
Court premises, the rampaging police staff systematically ran
through the chambers of lawyers within the High Court premises
causing wanton damage to the premises, pulling out suspected
lawyers and beating them. They also went to the lawyers'
Chambers situated on the Lingi Chetty Street, Thambu Chetty
Street, Armenian Street, Sungurama Chetty Street, Kondichetty
Street and Baker Street in the vicinity of the High Court,
systematically barged into such of the lawyers chambers which
were openand caused damage and beat up some of the lawyers
within. Even lady lawyers were not spared.
There is no doubt that the violence was started by the
unruly mob of lawyers, some of whom were even dressed in robes
and bands, but once the police got into action, there was no
stopping them. It was as if the police force, as a body, went
berserk. The lathi charge continued irrespective of whether a
lawyer was a miscreant or otherwise. The overzealousness of the
police resulted in their beating up a Despatch Peon, some other
court staff, a canteen boy and even assaulting on the head an
Hon'ble Judge of the High Court namely, Justice. Arumuga
Perumal Adithyan The videos show that Justice Arumuga Perumal
Adithyan, who was somewhat unduly brave in going to the
forefront of the rioting mob of lawyers clashing with the police, tried
to appeal to both sides to maintain calm and behave with the
dignity befitting the Chartered High Court. Neither side seems to
have paid heed to him. In the melee, while ' lathis were being
swung at the lawyers, one lathi blow from behind landed on the
head of the Hon'ble Judge. The video shows something
interesting. While being carried to the ambulance, the Hon'ble
Judge is heard, appealing not to the police, but to the lawyers, and
saying: "don't throw stones at the police, they are our protectors".
On the 19th February 2009, when the incident became
serious, some of the lawyers rushed to the Chamber of the
Learned Acting Chief Justice to apprise him.of the developments.
The Learned Acting Chief Justice and other Judges and the
Registry attempted to contact the Director General of Police and
the Commissioner of Police, but they were unable to contact them
for a long time. Finally, when the Commissioner of Police was
contacted, he assured that he would come to the. spot and ensu. re
withdrawal of the police. The Acting Chief Justice was emphatic
that all police personnel should be withdrawn from the High Court
premises and they were withdrawn, although some of the lawyers
continued to hold dharna inside even after 19th February 2009."
Now my question is, Why the SC acted in softened manner against the above acts of the police?.
The days are not far away for what happened to HC to happen to SC.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Wild guess??????????
Hi ,
I posted the following message on 2.3.2009 in 'kalugu.com'.( http://kalugu.com/2009/02/28/a-preplanned-attack-on-lawyers-to-divert-attention-from-sri-lanka/#comment-411 )
After receiving the Srikrishna report the SC has done the same what I guessed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vskesavan says:
March 2, 2009 at 12:08 PM
More than 6 HC judges were attacked by the police on 19.2.2009 incident and they are still suffering in silence. After reading the above report the reason for the judges’ silence is clear. They might have understood that everything is pre-planned and even the supreme court would not come to their rescue. That is what happening now by appointing a commissioner to advice the lawyers to go back to work which was not at all his assignment.
Now the big question is, will the judiciary dare to pass any adverse order in a case against any government and its corrupt ministers in future?
Even if the boycott is withdrawn, can the lawyers and public depose confidence on the judiciary in the current situation?
Lets wait and see.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just wanted to share with you.
I posted the following message on 2.3.2009 in 'kalugu.com'.( http://kalugu.com/2009/02/28/a-preplanned-attack-on-lawyers-to-divert-attention-from-sri-lanka/#comment-411 )
After receiving the Srikrishna report the SC has done the same what I guessed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vskesavan says:
March 2, 2009 at 12:08 PM
More than 6 HC judges were attacked by the police on 19.2.2009 incident and they are still suffering in silence. After reading the above report the reason for the judges’ silence is clear. They might have understood that everything is pre-planned and even the supreme court would not come to their rescue. That is what happening now by appointing a commissioner to advice the lawyers to go back to work which was not at all his assignment.
Now the big question is, will the judiciary dare to pass any adverse order in a case against any government and its corrupt ministers in future?
Even if the boycott is withdrawn, can the lawyers and public depose confidence on the judiciary in the current situation?
Lets wait and see.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just wanted to share with you.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
See how the media coverage is on the issue.
The Tamil Nadu IPS Officers’ Association said it could not come out with its views as police were party to the dispute. (Courtesy: The Hindu, 3rd March 2009)
I wish they would point us to the sections of the media who are condemning the police- for we have only been at the receiving end of absurd reports of petrol bombs being thrown from the High Court campus or constables coming to the High Court to submit resignations to the Commissioner being slashed with blades,all lapped up by credulous sections of the media. To be at the receiving end of batons and to have that compounded by ignoring large scale violence by police armed with lathis and protected by riot gear who are alleged to have "retaliated", when the facts are otherwise, is to sacrifice neutrality at the altar of partisanship. We, by no means intend to circumscribe the viewpoints of those who criticise us- it is not even within our province or power. But it is clear that those in government are closing ranks to protect those who unleashed violence on an unprecedented scale within the precincts of an institution which has safeguarded democracy during its times of peril. Such attempts not only strike at the steel frame of government but trivialise democracy itself. Mark our words, such defense of the indefensible only strengthens arrogance and lack of accountability and those who advocate such defense will surely need support and succour from us in their hour of need, for as you sow, shall you reap.
I wish they would point us to the sections of the media who are condemning the police- for we have only been at the receiving end of absurd reports of petrol bombs being thrown from the High Court campus or constables coming to the High Court to submit resignations to the Commissioner being slashed with blades,all lapped up by credulous sections of the media. To be at the receiving end of batons and to have that compounded by ignoring large scale violence by police armed with lathis and protected by riot gear who are alleged to have "retaliated", when the facts are otherwise, is to sacrifice neutrality at the altar of partisanship. We, by no means intend to circumscribe the viewpoints of those who criticise us- it is not even within our province or power. But it is clear that those in government are closing ranks to protect those who unleashed violence on an unprecedented scale within the precincts of an institution which has safeguarded democracy during its times of peril. Such attempts not only strike at the steel frame of government but trivialise democracy itself. Mark our words, such defense of the indefensible only strengthens arrogance and lack of accountability and those who advocate such defense will surely need support and succour from us in their hour of need, for as you sow, shall you reap.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Press release sent out yesterday, which media ignored
Press release sent out yesterday, which media ignored
PRESS RELEASE
The vandalism and carnage inside the Madras High Court by the police on 19th February 2009, has evoked a rather strange and even a shocking response from certain sections, particularly the middle class civil society. More than 150 lawyers , court staff, litigants and the general public have been injured, many of them grievously but they have been at the receiving end of bitter and sometimes even vituperative attacks. The common rhetoric is that the lawyers are lawless, demand impunity and indulge in crass behaviour and hence deserve the “lathi” treatment.
Just as there is degeneration in all segments of society there is undoubtedly a degeneration in the judicial system – both the Bar and Bench as well. As a nation we are witness to unruly incidents in Legislatures, the cash for votes scam, the nexus between pharmaceutical companies and doctors, the culpability of chartered accountants in the Satyam scam, the bureaucrats who have been part of various scams too numerous to list here, the complicity of high ranking police officials in the Godhra carnage, not to mention the sell out of the media. If the logic applied to lawyers is extended to all the decadent sections of society then each and every member of such sections needs a resounding thrashing including self flagellation by the police. All would agree that this is no solution to solve the ills of our society.
One of the key issues posed by the lawyers, the High Court and the Supreme Court alike is who authorised the entry of the armed police into the High Court premises. Reports from the media that when a cognizable offence is committed, the police have every right to enter overlooks the fact that more than 500 armed police entered the court campus when lawyers had resumed work on 19.02.2009 and were attending courts peacefully. Constitutional convention based on separation of powers demands that when any offence is reported to have been committed either within the Legislature or the Courts, the executive has to obtain the consent of the Speaker or the Chief Justice, lest there occurs any inroad into the independence of the constitutional authorities. It may be recalled in the recent Law College incident, the excuse for inaction was that they were awaiting the permission of the Principal of the College
Another argument justifying the police entry is the police station situated within the precincts. The location of a police station in the premises is beside the point. We are concerned here, not with the presence of a station house master and a writer in the High Court premises but the entry of a posse of more than 500 armed police.
If police can routinely enter court halls it will have very dangerous implications. The Indian Evidence Act provides for client – lawyer confidentiality. Individuals accused of crimes come to court to surrender in order to avoid police custody. Lawyers often file cases which may not always be to the liking of the powers that be. It is the security of the courts which allows for fearless espousal of their client’s cases by lawyers and discharge of their duties by Judges. The legal immunity granted to Judges for acts done in the discharge of their duties will be rendered meaningless if they are in constant fear of police entering Court Halls under the guise of responding to a breach of law and order or pursuit of accused.
There is criticism about the demand of lawyers calling for the suspension of the Commissioner of Police and the transfer of the DGP, even criticising the Supreme Court of bias in favour of lawyers. This demand is not only perfectly logical but is the general practice followed in all cases where there is enquiry into grave charges. The Commissioner of Police is today clearly in a position not only to tamper with evidence but to also threaten and silence witnesses. The fact that the Tamil Nadu Police did not register an FIR on all the incidents that occurred on 19/02/2009 indicated by the Madras High Court but registered a second FIR against lawyers as accused and forwarded this to the CBI is a clear pointer to the dangers of having the prime accused at the helm of affairs, something that has been noticed by the High Court, Madras and frowned upon in its order dated 2/03/09. Suspension is not a punishment but merely a procedural requirement to facilitate fair enquiry.
We will be missing the woods for the trees if the incidents of 19th February 2009 are viewed merely as an issue of clash between lawyers and police settling private scores. There was clearly an assault by the State executive on the Judiciary which has shaken public faith in the judicial system. The majesty of law can never be secured if the State is permitted to vandalise the precincts of the courts and threaten judges, lawyers, staff and litigants alike. No provocation can justify such action. Mixing up the issue of lawyers’ boycott to justify the incidents of 19.02.2009 leads directly to undermining the judiciary in the State.
The Judiciary is the only institution to protect the citizen from state excesses and the state cannot be permitted to silence the judiciary itself. There cannot be a greater indictment of the Executive than the High Court’s order that Courts cannot function because they have been damaged and destroyed. At stake is the independence and authority of the judiciary under the Constitution as protector of the rights of the common person and we lawyers have a public duty to protect this.
We as concerned lawyers are protesting with grave concerns to avoid any erosion of the independence of Judiciary.
R.VAIGAI
AYYATHURAI
ANNA MATHEW
R. RAJARAM
S.S.VASUDEVAN
S.DEVIKA
D.NAGASAILA
V.SURESH
SUDHA RAMALINGAM
T.MOHAN
R.S.RAVEENDHREN
J.RAVIKUMAR
M.REMYA
S.MEENAKSHI
M.N.SUMATHY
K.SHANTHI SAMANDHA
S.ARUN
PRESS RELEASE
The vandalism and carnage inside the Madras High Court by the police on 19th February 2009, has evoked a rather strange and even a shocking response from certain sections, particularly the middle class civil society. More than 150 lawyers , court staff, litigants and the general public have been injured, many of them grievously but they have been at the receiving end of bitter and sometimes even vituperative attacks. The common rhetoric is that the lawyers are lawless, demand impunity and indulge in crass behaviour and hence deserve the “lathi” treatment.
Just as there is degeneration in all segments of society there is undoubtedly a degeneration in the judicial system – both the Bar and Bench as well. As a nation we are witness to unruly incidents in Legislatures, the cash for votes scam, the nexus between pharmaceutical companies and doctors, the culpability of chartered accountants in the Satyam scam, the bureaucrats who have been part of various scams too numerous to list here, the complicity of high ranking police officials in the Godhra carnage, not to mention the sell out of the media. If the logic applied to lawyers is extended to all the decadent sections of society then each and every member of such sections needs a resounding thrashing including self flagellation by the police. All would agree that this is no solution to solve the ills of our society.
One of the key issues posed by the lawyers, the High Court and the Supreme Court alike is who authorised the entry of the armed police into the High Court premises. Reports from the media that when a cognizable offence is committed, the police have every right to enter overlooks the fact that more than 500 armed police entered the court campus when lawyers had resumed work on 19.02.2009 and were attending courts peacefully. Constitutional convention based on separation of powers demands that when any offence is reported to have been committed either within the Legislature or the Courts, the executive has to obtain the consent of the Speaker or the Chief Justice, lest there occurs any inroad into the independence of the constitutional authorities. It may be recalled in the recent Law College incident, the excuse for inaction was that they were awaiting the permission of the Principal of the College
Another argument justifying the police entry is the police station situated within the precincts. The location of a police station in the premises is beside the point. We are concerned here, not with the presence of a station house master and a writer in the High Court premises but the entry of a posse of more than 500 armed police.
If police can routinely enter court halls it will have very dangerous implications. The Indian Evidence Act provides for client – lawyer confidentiality. Individuals accused of crimes come to court to surrender in order to avoid police custody. Lawyers often file cases which may not always be to the liking of the powers that be. It is the security of the courts which allows for fearless espousal of their client’s cases by lawyers and discharge of their duties by Judges. The legal immunity granted to Judges for acts done in the discharge of their duties will be rendered meaningless if they are in constant fear of police entering Court Halls under the guise of responding to a breach of law and order or pursuit of accused.
There is criticism about the demand of lawyers calling for the suspension of the Commissioner of Police and the transfer of the DGP, even criticising the Supreme Court of bias in favour of lawyers. This demand is not only perfectly logical but is the general practice followed in all cases where there is enquiry into grave charges. The Commissioner of Police is today clearly in a position not only to tamper with evidence but to also threaten and silence witnesses. The fact that the Tamil Nadu Police did not register an FIR on all the incidents that occurred on 19/02/2009 indicated by the Madras High Court but registered a second FIR against lawyers as accused and forwarded this to the CBI is a clear pointer to the dangers of having the prime accused at the helm of affairs, something that has been noticed by the High Court, Madras and frowned upon in its order dated 2/03/09. Suspension is not a punishment but merely a procedural requirement to facilitate fair enquiry.
We will be missing the woods for the trees if the incidents of 19th February 2009 are viewed merely as an issue of clash between lawyers and police settling private scores. There was clearly an assault by the State executive on the Judiciary which has shaken public faith in the judicial system. The majesty of law can never be secured if the State is permitted to vandalise the precincts of the courts and threaten judges, lawyers, staff and litigants alike. No provocation can justify such action. Mixing up the issue of lawyers’ boycott to justify the incidents of 19.02.2009 leads directly to undermining the judiciary in the State.
The Judiciary is the only institution to protect the citizen from state excesses and the state cannot be permitted to silence the judiciary itself. There cannot be a greater indictment of the Executive than the High Court’s order that Courts cannot function because they have been damaged and destroyed. At stake is the independence and authority of the judiciary under the Constitution as protector of the rights of the common person and we lawyers have a public duty to protect this.
We as concerned lawyers are protesting with grave concerns to avoid any erosion of the independence of Judiciary.
R.VAIGAI
AYYATHURAI
ANNA MATHEW
R. RAJARAM
S.S.VASUDEVAN
S.DEVIKA
D.NAGASAILA
V.SURESH
SUDHA RAMALINGAM
T.MOHAN
R.S.RAVEENDHREN
J.RAVIKUMAR
M.REMYA
S.MEENAKSHI
M.N.SUMATHY
K.SHANTHI SAMANDHA
S.ARUN
Monday, March 2, 2009
Citizen's Statement Condemning the Tamilnadu Government's War Against Free Speech
Citizens Statement Condemning TN Govt's War on Free Speech
This statement was adopted at a meeting held on 1 March, 2009. The statement was released to the media, and will be sent to the Government. A number of artists, led by Nateshan and S. Sunil Kumar painted the wall outside Chandralekha/Sadanand Menon's house facing the Besant Nagar beach with murals in defence of free speech.
Citizen's Statement Condemning the Tamilnadu Government's War Against Free Speech
1 March, 2009
As citizens who place a high premium on the freedom of expression and the democratic ideal, we condemn the violence unleashed by the State Government and its police force on lawyers, judges, clients including a large number of women, court staff, court property and private property on 19 February, 2009. The police violence is being justified as a retaliatory act in response to some lawyers resisting arrest. The fact, however, remains that a massive police force armed to the teeth has forced its entry into the High Court without the express permission of the Court authorities.
The manner in which the police engaged in hot pursuit and returned to wreak violence in several separate encounters indicates an intent to terrorise, with the mandate to do so having been authorised by very high offices. The spectacle of law enforcement authorities going on a rampage demeans the image of the authority. That this deplorable act was triggered, at least partly if not wholly, by the Tamilnadu Government's growing frustration at the lawyers' continued demand for action to mitigate the humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka is public knowledge. Seen in this light, the police action of 19 February is clearly an act designed to strike at the roots of democracy and free speech. The act is extraordinary because of the audacity shown by the State in invading the premises of no less an institution than the High Court. If even hallowed institutions such as the judiciary are not spared the batons of the police, what chance does a common person have to express dissent without inviting violent retribution from the State. The court has been the only institution capable of reining in the police and holding this force accountable. Seen in this context, it is clear that the violent act of 19 February is intended as a warning to the judiciary about the consequences of being strict on the police and State.
Indeed, police violence and intimidation is a routine affair and one of the key tools deployed by the State to suppress dissent – be it by land-losers fighting to retain their lands, or slum dwellers fighting for due notice before eviction. A Government that does not know how to solicit opinions and conduct consultations in a non-threatening atmosphere is a Government that does not know how to perform in a democracy. If people are pushed to the extreme to express their opinion, the fault primarily lies with the Government for having failed to provide the right atmosphere and avenues to allow people to voice their views and be heard.
We extend our solidarity to all those who were victimised on 19 February in the Madras High Court premises, and to all others who have been intimidated and hurt by State actors for expressing their point of view.
In the immediate instance of the 19 February violence, we, as concerned citizens who believe in the rule of law and constitutional principles, demand that the Government of Tamilnadu should:
1. Publish a white paper naming the authorities who authorized the entry and subsequent action of the police force in the High Court.
2. Take stringent action against the police officers responsible for the incidents of 19 February, 2009.
3. Dissolve all Government appointed enquiry committees and extend its full cooperation to the Court-appointed committee.
4. The Government should pay for treatment of victims of police violence, and for restoration and repair of damaged property.
5. Demonstrate its commitment to free speech by easing restrictions on people's right to congregate, associate and express their opinions.
This statement was adopted at a meeting held on 1 March, 2009. The statement was released to the media, and will be sent to the Government. A number of artists, led by Nateshan and S. Sunil Kumar painted the wall outside Chandralekha/Sadanand Menon's house facing the Besant Nagar beach with murals in defence of free speech.
Citizen's Statement Condemning the Tamilnadu Government's War Against Free Speech
1 March, 2009
As citizens who place a high premium on the freedom of expression and the democratic ideal, we condemn the violence unleashed by the State Government and its police force on lawyers, judges, clients including a large number of women, court staff, court property and private property on 19 February, 2009. The police violence is being justified as a retaliatory act in response to some lawyers resisting arrest. The fact, however, remains that a massive police force armed to the teeth has forced its entry into the High Court without the express permission of the Court authorities.
The manner in which the police engaged in hot pursuit and returned to wreak violence in several separate encounters indicates an intent to terrorise, with the mandate to do so having been authorised by very high offices. The spectacle of law enforcement authorities going on a rampage demeans the image of the authority. That this deplorable act was triggered, at least partly if not wholly, by the Tamilnadu Government's growing frustration at the lawyers' continued demand for action to mitigate the humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka is public knowledge. Seen in this light, the police action of 19 February is clearly an act designed to strike at the roots of democracy and free speech. The act is extraordinary because of the audacity shown by the State in invading the premises of no less an institution than the High Court. If even hallowed institutions such as the judiciary are not spared the batons of the police, what chance does a common person have to express dissent without inviting violent retribution from the State. The court has been the only institution capable of reining in the police and holding this force accountable. Seen in this context, it is clear that the violent act of 19 February is intended as a warning to the judiciary about the consequences of being strict on the police and State.
Indeed, police violence and intimidation is a routine affair and one of the key tools deployed by the State to suppress dissent – be it by land-losers fighting to retain their lands, or slum dwellers fighting for due notice before eviction. A Government that does not know how to solicit opinions and conduct consultations in a non-threatening atmosphere is a Government that does not know how to perform in a democracy. If people are pushed to the extreme to express their opinion, the fault primarily lies with the Government for having failed to provide the right atmosphere and avenues to allow people to voice their views and be heard.
We extend our solidarity to all those who were victimised on 19 February in the Madras High Court premises, and to all others who have been intimidated and hurt by State actors for expressing their point of view.
In the immediate instance of the 19 February violence, we, as concerned citizens who believe in the rule of law and constitutional principles, demand that the Government of Tamilnadu should:
1. Publish a white paper naming the authorities who authorized the entry and subsequent action of the police force in the High Court.
2. Take stringent action against the police officers responsible for the incidents of 19 February, 2009.
3. Dissolve all Government appointed enquiry committees and extend its full cooperation to the Court-appointed committee.
4. The Government should pay for treatment of victims of police violence, and for restoration and repair of damaged property.
5. Demonstrate its commitment to free speech by easing restrictions on people's right to congregate, associate and express their opinions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- kesavan velayuthampalayam shanmugam
- I am a Lawyer by profession. Regardless of whom I meet or what I do or what I have become, it is the friends I grew up, that I feel.
Posts
