Friday, March 27, 2009

"Hooligan" lawyers assist Medha and the cause of democracy as always

SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS THE HISTORIC JUDGEMENT OF THE JABALPUR HIGH COURT ON
RIGHT TO PEACEFUL PROTEST AND RIGHT TO LIFE

NARMADA SATYAGRAHIS TO BE PAID RS. 5000 EACH BY M.P. GOVT. FOR VIOLATION OF
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

The Supreme Court today heard the appeal filed by the Government of Madhya
Pradesh (GoMP) against the Judgement of the Madhya Pradesh High Court
(Principal Bench: Jabalpur) directing the Government to pay Rs. 10, 000/- to
each Narmada Satyagrahi (more than Rs. 9 lakhs in toto), who, while peacefully
protesting against injustice through displacement without rehabilitation were
subjected to ruthless police force, lathi charge and illegal detention.

Justice Rajinder Sacher pleaded the case very strongly on behalf of Medha
Patkar and Narmada Bachao Andolan, vocally defending the Judgement of the High
Court and the people’s right to protest peacefully when no brutal force
becomes justifiable. The Interim Order delivered today by Justice P. Sathasivam
upholding the High Court Judgement partially directed the GoMP to immediately
(within four weeks) pay Rs. 5000/- to each Satyagrahi totaling Rs. 4.5 lakhs

The Sardar Sarovar Project affected adivasis and farmers: women, men and
children of District Jhabua (now Alirajpur) and Badwani had camped at the
Government lands of Krishi Vigyan Kendra as Satyagrahis, demanding the right to
land for rehabilitation and right to life in July 2007. During the peaceful
Satyagraha, they cultivated the land, without destroying anything belonging to
the Government agency, nor did they disturb peace. When 91 of the Satyagrahis
were arrested on the 25th July 2007, the women were manhandled and
unjustifiable excessive force was used by the Madhya Pradesh police. The
satyagrahis arrested under Sec 151 IPC were lodged in jail illegally without
review even after 24 hours. The 5 days jail period for all and 3-5 days jail to
senior NBA activists Ashish Mandloi and Medha Patkar maliciously invoking old
cases was questionable and so was the whole procedure followed during the
arrest with the use or brutal force and molestation of women.

The incidents and the role of the State was questioned through a letter sent by
Medha Patkar and 25 women from the Indore District Jail which was admitted as a
Public Interest Litigation and the Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh heard the
case, which was pleaded by Senior Advocate Shri N.S. Kale of Jabalpur and the
Advocate General for the GoMP. The historic Judegment by the Chief Justice of
Madhya Pradesh High Court Justice Shri A.K. Patnai, along with Justice Ajit
Singh upheld the right to protest peacefully by the adivasis and other
Satyagrahis in the situation of their right to life, i.e. right to be
rehabilitated as per policy, in the face of displacement, being violated.

The Judgement delivered after full hearing and viewing of CDs provided by both
the GoMP and Narmada Bachao Andolan found that Medha Patkar and other agitators
were forcibly dragged and bodily lifted and put inside the police van. The High
Court found that no circumstances existed to invoke Sections 151 and 107
Cr.P.C. Therefore, the High Court gave a finding that Medha Patkar and other
agitators were exercising their fundamental rights – the freedom of speech
and expression and their arrest was, therefore, gross violation of their
fundamental right, namely Article 19(1)(a), 19(1)(c) and Article 21 (right to
life). It upheld the right of the petitioners to be compensated for the
illegalities involved in the brutal police action and ordered a compensation of
Rs. 10,000 to be paid to each Satyagrahi, which money would be recovered from
GoMP and the responsible SDM of Badwani.

The GoMP went into appeal against the said judgement of the Supreme Court and
the former Justice Rajinder Sacher pleaded for Narmada Bachao Andolan, today on
March, 27th, 2009. The Supreme Court admitted the case, heard the parties, and
gave an interim Order directing the GoMP to pay 50% of the compensation amount
i.e. Rs. 5000/- to each Satyagrahi within 4 weeks from today.

Undoubtedly, the Interim Order is justice delivered not just to NBA Satyagrahis
and Project affected , but to all those in people’s movements fighting for
the right to land and livelihood and indeed the right to true, human and
ecologically just development. Amidst the overall political space for
people’s movements shrinking and the state becoming unjustifiably brutal and
repressive, using force and intimidation to quell and kill people’s rightful
resistance, this is indeed a historic path-breaking judgment that is welcome.

NBA looks forward to the further proceedings in the Court on this matter, which
is highly important to people’s movements at large and is thankful to Justice
Rajinder Sacher with Advocate Sanjay Parikh and also Advocate N.S Kale with
Advocate Abhijiit Bhowmik and Adv Raghavendra for their very valuable
contribution to public interest cause at hand.



Kailash Awasya Ashish Mandloi Clifton Rozario Shrikanth
(09424855042) (022-25212555)

Is Medha a hooligan a la Chennai lawyers?

BRUTAL POLICE LATHI-CHARGE AND ARREST, MEDHA PATKAR AMONG THOSE ARRESTED

Wednesday, 25th March 2009

About 300 slum dwellers, along with activists Medha Patkar, Simpreet Singh,
were arrested in Mumbai today evening. More than a thousand slum evictees were
protesting in front of the Maharashtra Housing Area Development Authority
(MHADA) building. They were protesting against atrocities and corruption by the
builders in the name of slum rehabilitation. After a dialogue with the MHADA,
Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) and Mantralaya officials, the
representatives were about to go and meet the collector at 3 p.m. when the
police suddenly lathi-charged without any announcement or warning and began
arrest.

Thousands of people in Mumbai are still living in transit camps after being
evicted years back. The arrested women, more than 200 in number, were brutally
lathi-charged and many women were molested and succumbed to injuries on the
skull, legs and arms. When reports last came, the injured were being taken to
hospital in batches. Many women and children are kept under custody in Bandra
Kurla Complex.

Charges put against the people are absolutely fake. Police accused that people
have attacked them while the reverse is what actually happened. They were
charged under sections 353, 332, 142, 147, 149, some being non-bailable
offences.

Vijaya Chauhan, Dipti Bhatnagar, Shrikanth

High Court order- a week down, no action to go

It is now more than a week from the time the High Court passed orders directing the suspension of two policemen for their role and responsibility (as admitted by the State Government before the Srikrishna Commission and by the Police Commissioner before the High Court) for the police atrocities committed inside and in the neighbourhood of the campus of the High Court, Madras. While lawyers have returned to work respecting the decision of the Full Bench directing them to return to work, such respect for court orders has been conspicuous in its absence among the ruling political establishment and bureaucrats. This inaction itself demonstrates the complicity of the state in the tragic events that began with the state violence on the 19th of February 2009.

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Today's order of the Supreme Court of India

ITEM NO. MM-1 COURT NO. 1 SECTION XII


SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) ……../2009

CC 3890/2009

(From the Judgment and order dated 18.03.2009 in WP No. 3335/2009 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras)


A.K. Vishwanathan & Anr. Petitioner (S)


Versus


Chief Sec. To the Govt. of T. Nadu & Ors. Respondent(S)


Date: 25/03/2009 this Petition was mentioned today


CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. PANCHAL

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUNULY


For Petitioner (s) Mr. Shanti Bhusahan, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr, Adv.

Mr. Siddharth Dave, Adv.

Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Adv.


For Respondent (s) Mr. L. Naheswara Rao, Sr. Adv.,

Mr. Adish Agarwal, Sr, Adv.

Mr. Jayant Muthraj, Adv.

Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, adv.


R. No. 12 Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. adv.

Mr. P.H. Parekh, Sr. Adv.

Mr. R.C. Paul Kanagaraj, Adv.

Mr. Vel Murugan, Adv.

Mr. V. Arunachalam., Adv.

Mr. C.K. Sasi, Adv.


R. No. 13 Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Jayant Muthraj, Adv.

Mr. Yogeswaran, adv.

Mr. Ramesh, adv.

Mr. Sunathi, Adv.

Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, adv.


R. No. 14 Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv.

Mr. M.K. Vejayaragavan, adv.

Mr. M.N. Chinnasamy, Adv.

Mr. P. Samasundaram, adv.

Mr. Jyoti Mendiratta, Adv.


R. No. 10 Mr. B. Balajit, Adv.

Mr. D. Kumanan, adv.

Mr. Satya Mitra Garg, Adv.


Upon hearing counsel the court made the following


O R D E R


Taken on board.


Issue notice returnable on 09.04.2009


Dasti, in addition, is permitted.


Permitted to serve the standing counsel also.





(G.V. Ramana) (Veera Verma)

Court Master Court Master

Supreme Court today

Today, the Supreme Court of India heard arguments advanced on behalf of Mr. A.K. Viswanathan, Additional Commissioner of Police (law and Order) Chennai and Mr. J. Ramsubramani, former Joint Commissioner of Police, Chennai (North) presently DIG, Coimbatore, who were ordered to be placed on suspension by the High Court Madras for their role and responsibility in the police brutality unleashed on advocates, judges, litigants and the general public within and in the neighbourhood of the High Court, Madras on 19/02/2009. The Court after hearing arguments advanced by Mr. Shanthi Bhushan, Senior Advocate appearing for the policemen and the arguments of counsel appearing for various bar associations refused to grant any interim stay of the High Court's interim orders and merely ordered issuance of notice while posting the matter to the 6th of April 2009.

Significantly, the name of Mr. Viswanathan, as the one responsible for the mobilised police personnel at the relevant time was provided by the State Government before the Justice Srikrishna Commission and by the Chennai City Police Commissioner before the High Court.

Further, the policemen who approached the Supreme Court of India did not appear in person as reported in a section of the media, but were represented by a senior advocate of the Supreme Court of India.

While there are lawyers who appear even for policemen accused of atrocities against their own fellow professionals consistent with the stand of advocates that however heinous an offence, a person is entitled to legal representation, we dont hear of any police officers/former police officers/bureaucrats in any part of the country decrying assault on human rights by police. We leave you to judge which professionals are the nobler in both spirit and action.

Sunday, March 22, 2009

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".

Watch rally telecast on Win TV

If you want to see for yourself the sleight of hand resorted to by mainstream media about the numbers (buy an abacus, you guys)in the rally held on 19/03/2009, watch WIN TV 5.30 to 7.30 p.m. on 22/03/09 (Sunday, today).

Friday, March 20, 2009

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

Five jailed for hurling slipper at SC judge


IANS
First Published : 20 Mar 2009 03:05:30 PM IST
Last Updated : 20 Mar 2009 03:16:49 PM IST

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.

Oh, for governors like these!

Questioning the use of police force, West Bengal Governor Gopal Krishna Gandhi said he was 'shocked and outraged' by the events at Nandigram where police firing killed 14 villagers Wednesday after cops clashed with protestors resisting land acquisition for a special economic zone (SEZ).

'The news of deaths by police firing in Nandigram this morning has filled me with a sense of cold horror. We will soon know more details of the sequence of events that led to this tragedy,' he said in a statement.He said the 'point uppermost in my mind is not who started it but who provoked it or whether there were agent provocateurs behind it,' he said.

'Investigations will reveal the thought in my mind - and of all sensitive people - about whether this spilling of human blood is not avoidable? What is the public purpose served by the use of force that we have witnessed today?' he said.

'Force against anti-national elements, terrorists, extremists, insurgents, is one thing. The receiving end of the force used today does not belong to that order,' he added.

'What I advised the government over the last two days, as I received inputs of rising tension in Nandigram, government knows. It is not my intention to enter into blame-fixing,' Gandhi said, making it clear that he had warned of such a situation.

'But I cannot be so casual to the oath I have taken as to restrict my reaction to a pious expression of anguish and outrage. I trust the government will not only go into the whys and wherefores of this tragic occurrence but will also ensure that it leaves no room for a repetition of the kind of trauma witnessed today,' he said.

'I leave it to the conscience of officials responsible to atone for the event in the manner they deem fit. But I also expect the government to do what it thinks is necessary to mitigate the effects of this bitter March 14, and to do it visible and fast,' he said.

An opportunity to pin blame on lawyers wasted

Frustrated cop hangs self
20 Mar 2009, 0215 hrs IST, TNN
Print Email Discuss Share Save Comment Text:
CHENNAI: A 31-year-old sub-inspector of police committed suicide by hanging at his residence in Avadi on Wednesday. According to police sources,
Sri Ganesh of the Korattur (law and order) station, who is survived by his wife Mohana Priya (28) and son Rubesh (1), was frustrated that his request to serve in one of the force's special wings was denied.

"He often complained that he didn't want to serve as a law and order SI. Recently, he was transferred to Korattur from Sathangadu police station on the recommendation of a senior police officer," a police officer said.

A few weeks ago, Sri Ganesh approached a senior police officer and submitted a petition, seeking entry into a special agency. The officer, sources said, scolded him in front of other policemen and asked him to continue in his post. Sri Ganesh then went on medical leave for a month.

The Avadi police registered a case and began investigations.

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Orwellian Doublespeak and Kafkaesque media coverage

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. Unrelenting in its disdain for the lawyers' struggle for justice and solicitious of police sensitivity and ruling party's political compulsions, the Hindu took the leap from the incredible to the bizarre 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 Hindu's fall to ignominy was complete. What a change from Mr. N. Ravi's hard hitting editorials and Ms. Malini Parthasarathi'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 at that time.

Rally for justice a resounding success

More than 30,000 lawyers from all over Tamil Nadu and many senior lawyers from across the country congregated at Chennai (some television channels estimated the turnout at 50,000+) joined thousands of lawyers from Chennai taking out a massive rally to focus attention on the lawlessness that has gripped the state characterised by the premeditated brutal attack on lawyers, judges, litigants and the general public in and around the Madras High Court campus on the 19th of February 2009. Mathematically challenged (among other things) sections of the media however preferred to estimate the massive turnout at a modest 5,000. So be it.

After a small rally with a few thousand lawyers having marched to the Memorial Hall, more than a thousand lawyers forming a human chain around the High Court campus, today, ten of thousands of lawyers thronged the procession route from the High Court campus to the State Guest House via the Munro Statue on Mount Road. Seniors and juniors alike, men and women alike, rural and urban alike, the participation in the procession mirrored the unity that has characterised the lawyers struggle for justice.

Lawyers from all over the state thronged to the state capital notwithstanding the fact that given the fact that there has been no financial inflow for most if not all lawyers over the last several weeks now.

The rally was almost entirely regulated by the lawyers themselves, and the fact that the rally went off peacefully with the least possible inconvenience to the general public, lawyers regulated traffic and with the co operation of Exnora International also managed to have the stretch from Periyar Statue (opp the Hindu) to Bells Road cleaned itself must have come as a slap in the face for the police and their political masters.

After the rally, the Joint Action Committee of all bar associations decided to temporarily suspend their agitation and resume attendance at court from Monday, the 23rd of March 2009.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Interim order directing suspension of SENIOR COPS

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.

Too little, Too late?

A Full Bench of the Madras High Court today heard the suo motu PIL and various PIL's filed by the Madras High Court Advocates' Association, the Women lawyers' Association, and others in connection with the police violence unleashed in Madras High Court Campus on the 19th February 2009. The Bench took up the matter for hearing today morning and heard the arguments of petitioner advocates, representatives of the Bar and also the Advocate General for the State Government. At 4.30 p.m. the Bench passed interim orders directing the State Government to suspend the Additional Commissioner of Police Mr.A.K.Viswanathan, and Joint Commissioner of Police (Chennai North) Mr.J.Ramasubramani (presently DIG Coimbatore Range). The Full Bench also requested the lawyers to go back to work. It is significant to state that even according to the Home Secretary it was Viswanathan who was in charge of the police until the Commissioner arrived on the scene on 19th February 2009. Any self respecting government ought to have placed not only Mr.Viswanathan who was implicated by the State itself but also the DGP, and the ADGP (L& O) Mr.T.Rajendran, the Commissioner of Police Mr.K.Radhakrishnan and the intelligence officers who played a significant role in masterminding the predetermined attack, on suspension in addition to ordering their arrest. This order is undoubtedly resounding victory for the lawyers' in Tamil Nadu who have been agitating for nearly a month now. This interim order will by no means bring the curtains down on the shameful saga of police atrocities. The lawyers' struggle for justice will not yield or lie dormant until all the guilty police officers are brought to book and pay the penalty for the assault on the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law.

"We have promises to keep and miles to go before we sleep"

Tuesday, March 17, 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



VISIT US AT : www.liberatemadrashighcourt.blogspot.com

Legal aid camps continue for the second day

For the second day today, lawyers (who anyway provide legal aid to indigent litigants and in many public interest matters) continued to provide legal aid and assistance to litigants within the court campuses. Scores of litigants went away after receiving legal advice and the feedback we received was that they were entirely satisfied with the reception they got and the advice they received.

Legal aid camps - courtesy the Hindu

What these zealous journalists fail to report is that one of the litigants referred to in the news item, Kantha has been receiving legal aid from lawyers who have been appearing pro bono for her for the last several years, mentioning the matter in court several times, waiting endlessly for the matter to reach each time the matter is listed, arguing the matter on several occasions, negotiating with government for a settlement and so on and so forth. After all the first principle in embedded journalism is to only ask questions to fit the answers you already have.

mohan

Litigants begin defending their cases



K.T. Sangameswaran and S. Vydhianathan






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They were guided by striking lawyers

Advocates to continue boycott of courts


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



CHENNAI: With the Madras High Court issuing a notification that cases will be decided on merit from Monday, litigants themselves appeared before judges to defend their cases.

Advocates, who are continuing their strike, guided them by organising free legal aid camps.

After obtaining the advocate’s advice, the litigant public put forth their cases before judges. In some cases, the courts passed orders.

The litigants had to make their submissions since advocates had decided to withdraw their vakkalats/memo of appearance in courts.

Having a tough time


The litigants had a difficult time. However, in view of the notification they did not want their viewpoint to go unrepresented. They waited till their cases were called.

Language was no barrier. Some of them narrated their cases in Tamil.

For instance, Kantha of Medavakkam, near Tambaram, a contract labourer, who was waiting for her case to be taken up, said she had filed a petition seeking a compensation of Rs.10 lakh against a hospital for giving a wrong test report.

The case had been pending for nearly two years. She was confident of presenting her case before a Division Bench as there were so many other litigants.

In another case, Jean Marcs, whose land dispute case had been pending for the last 26 years in different courts, said she was forced to argue her case.

The case between her and the owner of a neighbouring land was filed by her father in the Tiruvallur Munsif Court in 1983. After her father’s demise, she was continuing the case.

Pankajavalli defended her case assisted by her son, who was operating a share-auto in Jodhpur. They left the place and settled down in Chennai.

They wanted to continue operating the share-auto in Chennai.

But the State government refused to give her a permit citing various reasons. The auto had almost become a junk now.

A representative of a Trust in Villupuram district sought a court directive for erecting poles on a land for setting up an electric transformer. Its opponent claimed the land belonged to him and objected to putting up the equipment.

Travelling from neighbouring Bangalore did not prove fruitful for two persons. Though they were prepared to argue the case, it was adjourned by two weeks for filing of counter.

A jurist said that not all cases could be fought by the litigant public directly since they had no legal training. Litigants had to be restrained if they spoke outside the law. At times, judges may have to guide the parties and this involved more time of the courts.

The possibility of passing orders on merit is more if the petition and the counter were available in addition to oral submissions.

Meanwhile, MHAA secretary M. Velmurugan said the boycott of courts by advocates would continue.

Legal aid camps


Three legal aid camps had been set up on court premises to guide the litigant public to defend their cases.

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 the 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

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 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

Nearly a thousand lawyers resolve to shun the Hindu

Nearly a thousand lawyers (by 6p.m today) 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 in the civil or company jurisdiction in any issue of The Hindu or the Business Line.
Lawyers do not question the right of the media to carry any view. Was it not Voltaire who said "I may not agree with a word of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". However, open hostility and partisan comment cannot hide behind the smokescreen of self righteousness, neutrality and the pretence of journalistic ethics. Clearly even in this age of civic indifference and consumerism, an informed consumer(?) of news has not only the choice, but also the right to exercise it.

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.

Saturday, March 14, 2009

Today's meeting of the Joint Action Committee of all bar associations in Tamil Nadu

Information gathered indicates that the Joint Action Committee of all the bar associations took strong exception to the communique issued by the Registrar General of the High Court, Madras that from Monday, the 16th of March, all courts would dispose off matters on merits and that in criminal matters, the court would request amicus curiae to assist the court or intimate the accused in jail to make alternative arrangements.

The Joint Action Committee resolved to assist parties through provision of legal aid and that in the present circumstances, no lawyer could assist the court as amicus.

The Joint Action Committee requested all the members of their members to participate in the massive rally to be held on the 19th of February 2009 at Chennai.

It looks likely that the boycott would continue and that the issue would be revisited or reviewed on the 26th of March 2009 or whenever there are any developments.

More than a thousand lawyers withdraw from all their cases in the High Court

Recent reports indicate that the High Court registry has received letters from over a thousand lawyers, informing the court that those lawyers have written to their clients expressing their inability to attend courts on behalf of their clients given the surcharged atmosphere and the threat to the safety of lawyers and judges in the High Court. These lawyers have sought the Registry to intimate the parties to proceedings of the listing of matters and hearing of the matters thereafter.

உச்ச நீதிமன்ற தீர்ப்பு

GOSWAMI KRISHNA MURARILAL SHARMA

-Vs-
DHAN PRAKASH AND OTHERS

1991 4 SCC 574

The Order of the Court was given by Desai, J - Special leave granted

2. With the consent of the parties, we decided to dispose of the appeal by a speaking order. The appellant-defendant filed first appeal No. 286 of 1961 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad against the Judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Meerut by which the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed declaring that the house involved in the appeal is a public temple and the shop involved in the dispute in the suit was property of the public trust. A further declaration was given that the defendants were not suitable persons to be trustees of public trust and therefore a scheme for the administration of the public trust be prepared and new trustees be appointed.

3. When this appeal, preferred by the appellant in the High Court came up for hearing, Shiri Banerjee larned counsel for the appellant stated that he had no further instructions in the matter and sought leave to withdraw from the case and on being so permitted he withdrew and then the Court proceeded to dismiss the appeal for failure of the appellant to appear and prosecute the appeal.

4. From a short cryptic Order of the High Court, its is difficult to call out why Shri Banerjee, learned Advocate, who appeared for the appellant sought leave to withdraw at the last minute and that too in the absence of the appellant. Assuming, if Mr. Banerjee made out cogent reasons for withdrawal, it is difficult to appreciate how while granting the request of Mr. Banerjee and recording his withdrawal from appeal, the Court straight away proceeded to dismiss the appeal for failure of the appellant to appear and to prosecute the appeal. It appears that thereafter the appellant filed and application for restoring the appeal by recalling the order dismissing it for the failure of the appellant to appear and prosecute the appeal.

5. The appellant made another application for restoring the appeal and hearing it on merits. The same was dismissed on April 23, 1979.

6. It appears that the appellant had engaged his advocate and at the hearing of the appeal ordinarily the presence of the parties is generally redundant. Learned Advocate appearing on either side is heard by the Court and the arguments are directed with reference to the trial court’s record. Ordinarily, the personal presence of the parties is not even insisted upon at the hearing of the appeal.

7. Now, the appellant had engaged his advocate who withdrew, the reasons for withdrawal being known only to the learned Advocate and not ascertainable from the record. It is difficult to appreciate how the Court straight away proceeded to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appellant in person is not present. It is all the more disquieting how the High Court declined to grant the application for restoration of appeal and to hear it on merits, Without dilating upon this point, relying on the decision of this Court in Rafiq Vs Munshilal, we think that the appellant’s appeal which was admitted by the High Court should have been heard on merits after giving an opportunity to engage another advocate.

8. We, accordingly allow this appeal and set aside the Order of the High Court dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appellant was absent at the hearing of the appeal and failed to take steps to prosecute the appeal. We direct that the High Court should restore this appeal to its original number and proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. The appellant is at liberty to engage his advocate to appear and take effective steps for the final disposal of the appeal. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Status quo with regard to possession and the proceedings before the lower court as on today till the disposal of the appeal.
---------------------------

உயர்நீதிமன்றத்திற்கு எல்லா வழக்கறிஞர் தனித்தனியே எழுதிய கடிதம்

14th March 2009



The Registrar General,

High Court,

Madras.



Madam,



Ref: Notification No. 48 of 2009

------------



I have written to the parties for whom I have filed vakalats in the High Court, returning their brief and asking them to make alternative arrangements for their appearance, for the reason that it is not possible for me to continue to appear in Courts as the safety of Lawyers and Judges inside the Courts in Tamil Nadu is under threat.



I request you to not to print my name in the cause list henceforth.



You are, therefore, requested to send notices directly to the parties concerned before listing matters for hearing before the Court.



Yours faithfully,

உயர்நீதிமன்றம் கேசுகளை தானே நடத்தும் ஹிந்து செய்தி

Tamil Nadu courts asked to take up cases from March 16



K.T. Sangameswaran







CHENNAI: In view of the advocates’ strike in Tamil Nadu, the Presiding Officers of all courts and tribunals will take up cases for hearing and decide on merits from March 16, the Madras High Court said on Friday.

The court asked the Principal District Judges to put up the message in the courts’ notice boards.

The communication should say that in criminal matters, in the event of non-availability of advocates, either the lawyers in the panel of amicus curiae or those in the panel of the Legal Services Committee would be requested to appear for the accused; or notice will be sent to the accused, who are either on bail or in jail, that they should make alternative arrangements to represent them in their cases.

Friday, March 13, 2009

மீண்டும் ஒரு வாய்தா

For those of us who think that the best route for lawyers to take is to litigate seeking vindication of their rights, think again. From the 19th of February 2009, lawyers have moved the High Court, the Supreme Court and the High Court again by filing various cases. The latest of these cases were cases filed by various bar associations before the High Court. When the matters came up before a Division Bench headed by the Chief Justice, after hearing arguments urging that suspension of police officers was the minimum requirement to ensure a fair and impartial enquiry, the High Court directed Respondents to file a counter and directed these new writ petitions before the Full Bench. However while doing so, the matter before the Full Bench (which should have been posted for hearing on the 11th of March 2009 but has not been posted so far due to the ill health of Mr. Justice Mukhopadhyay) was also directed to be heard on the 26th of March 2009. The Government Pleader also undertook to produce a log of the both the internal and external communication of the police officers by the 14th of March 2009 and to produce the record of calls made by the police officers on the 16th of March 2009.

The Government Pleader continued evading the question "who ordered the entry int Court of armed police personnel and who ordered the lathi charge"?

With the Government in no mood to relent, it is not likely that normalcy will return to court halls in the near future.

இன்று கோர்ட்டில் போலீஸ் மீது வக்கீல்கள் சங்கம் போட்ட வழக்கு விசாரணை

Today, a dvision bench of the High Court, Madras commenced hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by the Madras High Court Advocates Association, the Women Lawyers' Association and others seeking action against police officers and personnel who brutally attacked lawyers, judges, court staff litigants and the general public on the 19th of February 2009.

The matter was heard in part until 1:00 p.m. today and hearing is to continue in the afternoon of today viz., at about 2.45 p.m. on the 13th of March 2009.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

கருணாநிதி - வினாசகாலே விபரீத புத்தி

MASSIVE HUMAN CHAIN AROUND THE HIGH COURT TODAY
Lawyers from Chennai today took out a massive human chain encircling the 36 acre high court campus symbolising how it was only the lawyer community which protected judges and the court campus targetted for vicious attack by the police on the 19th of February 2009. Though the call for the human chain demonstration was given only yesterday, the massive turnout for the belied the state's propoganda and the version of a pliant section of the media that lawyers had returned to courts in response to the call by the ruling party's legal wing.

The human chain followed on the heels of yesterday's rally to the Memorial Hall from the High Court campus. Again organised at short notice, hundreds of lawyers demonstrated that they stood united and would never be defeated.

Mr. M. Karunanidhi, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, who has a history of issuing empty threats of having his M.Ps from Tamil Nadu resign from the Parliament, fasting from the hospital bed etc. has shown no sign of taking action against the errant police officers who have been indicted by even the much maligned (rightly, for the most part) Sri Krishna report. It is clear that he does not want to lose power at the centre and the state and that he needs a partisan police force to assist the party during the Lok Sabha polls.

But by taking no steps against the police, Mr. Karunanidhi is lending credence to the view that the attack on the lawyers and the police was a intelligence led "Operation Black Coat" operation unleashed by the State to stifle the voice of lawyers and judges and to enslave the state judiciary.


Whatever his motivation, it is clear that Mr. Karunanidhi has grossly underestimated the power of the lawyer community, and the carnage which he unleashed though the police has cemented various groups and forged a united front among the lawyers.

It is not as if lawyers resorted to direct non violent action alone. From the 19th of February 2009, lawyers have attempted to obtain legal redress for the constitutional crisis that has enveloped the state. The media and the "letters to the editor" writing public have hardly scratched the surface of lies to discover the truth, for it is prejudice and hatred that they prefer to truth and stuggle. So be it! History will judge us, not fickle media barons who depend on government largesse in the nature of assignment of land for their recreational sports venture, exoneration from cases and for reasons too varied to go into here in detail.

Now that lawyers have taken to the streets peacefully and to sensitise the general public about the threat to the body politic from a police force and a political class gone berserk and running amok, the sounds of the death knell being sounded for the present government are growing louder by the minute.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

"ஹூளிகன்ஸ்" போலீசார் வசம் சிக்கினார்கள் - நன்றி டெக்கான் க்ரொநிக்கெல்

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.

Monday, March 9, 2009

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,

Sunday, March 8, 2009

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

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Hearing at 12.30 p.m. today

We now learn that the matter before the Supreme Court of India is to be taken up for hearing only at 12.30 p.m. today and not at 10.30 a.m.

Justice B.N.Srikrishna files report

Newspaper reports state that Justice B.N.Srikrishna(Retd) met the Chief Justice of India at his residence yesterday and handed over his report. The matter is listed today before the Supreme Court.

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Supreme Court today

Since the report of Justice B.N. Srikrishna who is probing the brutal attack on lawyers and judges by the police on 19/02/2009 was not ready, the Supreme Court today adjourned the matter to the 6th of March 2009.

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

Times of India report Chennai edition today on the blog

Lawyers take to blogging on HC clash
TIMES NEWS NETWORK

Chennai: Even as the Justice Srikrishna Committee is inquiring into the policelawyers clash, the advocates have started a blog to highlight their version of the issue to the public.
“Welcome to those who wish their opinions to be informed by facts and imbued with truth about the shameful attack on the Madras High Court, on 19th February 2009 which marks a new nadir in the history of democracy in India.” This is the note which welcomes any visitor to the blog called
www.liberatemadrashighcourt.blogspot.com started by a group of advocates.
The blog, with videos and articles, presents the lawyer’s version of the February 19 clash. There are around 21 followers for the blog till date and around seven persons who have been contributing regularly. R Vaigai, a senior advocate with the HC, said, “The media did not portray the clash properly, so the advocates decided to start this blog”
A police officer, who sought anonymity, said, “We cannot start blogs or indulge in protests as we will get suspended”.
timeschennai@timesgroup.com
(Courtesy: Times of India, Chennai edition, 3/03/09)

Treating aggressors and victims alike-the role of the civil service

IAS officers for giving equal protection to police

R.K. Radhakrishnan and S. Vijay Kumar

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.”

“Justice has to be done to the police as well as to the lawyers and the majesty of the law has to be upheld. While rightly paying attention to excesses by some policemen, we submit that there is an equal necessity to punish those lawyers who are guilty of crimes and to protect those police officers who were merely carrying out their lawful duty,” the association said.

In a resolution passed by the association, a copy of which was submitted to Chief Secretary K.S.Sripathi, the Association requested the government “to ensure that police officers and men have access to the best and most distinguished legal counsel to defend their actions in the course of duty, and sanction adequate funds for this purpose.”

The memorandum, signed by office-bearers of the association, including S. Ramasundaram, P. Rama Mohana Rao and T.V. Somanathan, said: “The IAS officers of Tamil Nadu note with serious concern from media reports that the police are being condemned unheard by certain sections of society and the media, and that the basic principles of natural justice and equality before law appear to be in danger of being ignored.”

The association said: “It is established that the events originated in acts of lawlessness and violence perpetrated by a section of lawyers, some lawyers resisted lawful arrest and disobeyed lawful orders of public servants who were performing their duties and that there is irrefutable evidence that a group of persons who are, or appear to be, lawyers formed an unlawful assembly on February 19th afternoon inside the court complex and engaged in serious acts of rioting and mob violence against the police, including throwing of brickbats, stones and other missiles apart from the most vulgar kind of verbal abuse.”

It pointed out that there is no provision in the Constitution, statute or case law which states that court complexes are out of bounds for the police. “We do not in any way condone or support police excesses. However, we are deeply concerned that this complex, multi-faceted problem is being treated in some quarters as a one-sided issue of police excesses. Remarks are being made on the assumption of police culpability, without giving due opportunity of being heard to the police. The reactive measures of the police are discussed without referring to the aggressive provocation which led to it. While one side in this matter (namely the concerned section of the lawyers) is free to organise, to strike, to agitate, to make statements, give interviews and supply one-sided visual information, the other side, namely the police, is (rightly) encumbered by its conduct rules and cannot publicise its version of events,” it said.

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.