Today's press release

PRESS RELEASE
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.

Yours truly,