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.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Text of High Court order 2/03/09-See how the police treat judicial orders
SUO MOTU [Taken Up] W. P. [PIL] No. 3335 of 2009
HON’BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN
MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
[ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE]
Pursuant to the Court’s orders dated 19th February, 2009 and 21st February, 2009, the case has been listed today. While it is informed that the State Government has referred and entrusted the matter to the CBI, after perusal of the records, we are of the view that the Court’s order dated 19th February, 2009 has not been complied with by the respondents. This would be evident from the following facts:
1. On 19th February, 2009, this Court noticed all the relevant facts, information received from one or other sources and counter claim made by the police and the lawyers. The details regarding the incidents with time have been shown in the said order and in the said order, it has also been mentioned that the Court passed the order at about 6.40pm. The said order was dictated in the presence of the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary, Director General of Police, Commissioner of Police, Government Pleader and certain lawyers. It was ordered to forward a copy of the said order to the Secretary to Government, Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, New Delhi, who, in its turn, was directed to forward the same to the Director, CBI investigation. This was so ordered as that was the first information given to the Police Officials, viz., Director General of Police, Commissioner of Police, Chennai, apart from other Police Officials, who were present in the Court, which was to be registered as a case for the purpose of investigation by CBI. But from the records, it appears that no case has been registered in terms with the first information received by the Respondents vide Court’s order dated 19th February, 2009. It appears that a separate case in Crime No. 15 of 2009 under Sections 147,353,332,450,436 & 307, IPC r/w Section 3[1] of the Tamilnadu Properties [Prevention of Damages and Loss] Act, 1992, made on the basis of a complaint made by a Sub-Inspector of Police, was forwarded by the State Government and a notification issued in this regard on 23rd February, 2009, on the basis of which the Union of India, from its Department of Personnel and Training issued a notification contained in letter No.228/10/2009 AVD.II dated 28th February, 2009.
2. We have also noticed that in the said Crime No.15 of 2009, no reference has been made with regard to the Court’s order dated 19th February, 2009 and the facts shown therein, including the time given, which also differ from the information received by the Respondents pursuant to the Court’s order dated 19th February, 2009.
3. Counter Affidavits have been filed by the First Respondent/Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu and Fourth Respondent/Commissioner of Police, Chennai. Learned Government Pleader submits that it is a procedural matter, for which a case was to be registered, but such stand can be taken only if the FIR is lodged in terms with the facts recorded by the Court on its Order dated 19th February, 2009.
4. By order dated 19.02.2009, we directed the Respondents to adhere to their undertaking given before this Court with clear stipulation that on failure, it will be treated to be a violation of the Court’s order. Therefore, prima facie, we are of the view that the Respondents/authorities of the State have violated the Court’s order dated 19th February, 2009, by not registering a case pursuant to the Court’s order dated 19th February, 2009 and asking the CBI to investigate the matter as per Court’s order dated 19th February, 2009. We, accordingly, grant time to the Respondents to file an affidavit in this regard by the next date. It will also be open to the Respondents/State Authorities and Union of India to pass appropriate orders on the basis of the first information received by them at 6.40pm pursuant to the Court’s order dated 19.02.2009. Any other information given subsequently at or about 19.20hours [7.20pm] cannot be treated to be a case registered pursuant to the Court’s order. It will also be open to the CBI to register a case on the basis of the Court’s order dated 19th February, 2009.
5. In public interest, it would be desirable to implead the Madras Bar Association, Madras High Court Advocates Association, Women Lawyers Association, Law Association and Tamilnadu Advocates Association as profroma respondents, as all of them have represented before the Supreme Court.
So far as the question as to who ordered to enter the High Court premises is concerned, we are not making any observation as the matter os pending consideration before the Supreme Court.
Let the case be listed under the same caption on 11th March, 2009 at 2.30p.m.
[S. J. M. , ACJ] [V. D. P. J.] [K. C. J.]
2nd March, 2009.
HON’BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN
MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
[ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE]
Pursuant to the Court’s orders dated 19th February, 2009 and 21st February, 2009, the case has been listed today. While it is informed that the State Government has referred and entrusted the matter to the CBI, after perusal of the records, we are of the view that the Court’s order dated 19th February, 2009 has not been complied with by the respondents. This would be evident from the following facts:
1. On 19th February, 2009, this Court noticed all the relevant facts, information received from one or other sources and counter claim made by the police and the lawyers. The details regarding the incidents with time have been shown in the said order and in the said order, it has also been mentioned that the Court passed the order at about 6.40pm. The said order was dictated in the presence of the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary, Director General of Police, Commissioner of Police, Government Pleader and certain lawyers. It was ordered to forward a copy of the said order to the Secretary to Government, Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, New Delhi, who, in its turn, was directed to forward the same to the Director, CBI investigation. This was so ordered as that was the first information given to the Police Officials, viz., Director General of Police, Commissioner of Police, Chennai, apart from other Police Officials, who were present in the Court, which was to be registered as a case for the purpose of investigation by CBI. But from the records, it appears that no case has been registered in terms with the first information received by the Respondents vide Court’s order dated 19th February, 2009. It appears that a separate case in Crime No. 15 of 2009 under Sections 147,353,332,450,436 & 307, IPC r/w Section 3[1] of the Tamilnadu Properties [Prevention of Damages and Loss] Act, 1992, made on the basis of a complaint made by a Sub-Inspector of Police, was forwarded by the State Government and a notification issued in this regard on 23rd February, 2009, on the basis of which the Union of India, from its Department of Personnel and Training issued a notification contained in letter No.228/10/2009 AVD.II dated 28th February, 2009.
2. We have also noticed that in the said Crime No.15 of 2009, no reference has been made with regard to the Court’s order dated 19th February, 2009 and the facts shown therein, including the time given, which also differ from the information received by the Respondents pursuant to the Court’s order dated 19th February, 2009.
3. Counter Affidavits have been filed by the First Respondent/Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu and Fourth Respondent/Commissioner of Police, Chennai. Learned Government Pleader submits that it is a procedural matter, for which a case was to be registered, but such stand can be taken only if the FIR is lodged in terms with the facts recorded by the Court on its Order dated 19th February, 2009.
4. By order dated 19.02.2009, we directed the Respondents to adhere to their undertaking given before this Court with clear stipulation that on failure, it will be treated to be a violation of the Court’s order. Therefore, prima facie, we are of the view that the Respondents/authorities of the State have violated the Court’s order dated 19th February, 2009, by not registering a case pursuant to the Court’s order dated 19th February, 2009 and asking the CBI to investigate the matter as per Court’s order dated 19th February, 2009. We, accordingly, grant time to the Respondents to file an affidavit in this regard by the next date. It will also be open to the Respondents/State Authorities and Union of India to pass appropriate orders on the basis of the first information received by them at 6.40pm pursuant to the Court’s order dated 19.02.2009. Any other information given subsequently at or about 19.20hours [7.20pm] cannot be treated to be a case registered pursuant to the Court’s order. It will also be open to the CBI to register a case on the basis of the Court’s order dated 19th February, 2009.
5. In public interest, it would be desirable to implead the Madras Bar Association, Madras High Court Advocates Association, Women Lawyers Association, Law Association and Tamilnadu Advocates Association as profroma respondents, as all of them have represented before the Supreme Court.
So far as the question as to who ordered to enter the High Court premises is concerned, we are not making any observation as the matter os pending consideration before the Supreme Court.
Let the case be listed under the same caption on 11th March, 2009 at 2.30p.m.
[S. J. M. , ACJ] [V. D. P. J.] [K. C. J.]
2nd March, 2009.
Monday, March 2, 2009
High Court raps police on its knuckles
From available information provided by lawyers who managed to get into an overcrowded court call, where the Bench consisting of Acting Chief Justice S.J.Mukhopadhyaya, Mr. Justice V. Dhanapalan, Mr. Justice K. Chandru, it appears that the High Court expressed displeasure over the fact about the First Information Report lodged by the police at 7.20 p.m on 19/02/2009. The Court held/observed that the FIR which should have been lodged is one pursuant to the order of the High Court at 6.40 p.m which should have been considered the First Information Report and that the second F.I.R was illegal.
Message of support from Pravin, theatre artiste a friend of art, free speech, democracy and of course of ours
S. last month telling me about an exercise he did with his Asian College of Journalism students in analysing media photos... a large no. of photos selected by the students were those of violent protests...
S. then pointed out to them how most of them were titled "mob violence" or "mob fury" etc... and how 99% of them were taken from behind police lines with the "antagonists" seen throwing stones etc...! Talk about embedded journalism, he said...I questioned myself on how many times I had unwittingly swallowed and accepted the perverse representation of the facts...the truth is that society as whole needs to be sensitised to the mind games indulged in by the media...
many questions arise: why would the Hindu, , not allow an advertisement to be taken out? Why would they choose to represent a one sided version? Who are the vested interests behind the events and the media "gag"? How are the Law College incidents and the High Court incidents related and what do they signify in an election year? What challenging alternatives can we come up with to the existing media, knowing how, unchallenged, the media empire dictates govt. policy in the US, UK and Australia? (Please let me know if I can help in anyway, and how we can take the action forward. (Hope all of you are physically okay, though the damage runs much deeper. A breakdown of the systems handed down to us by the Brits will always be on the cards though.
S. then pointed out to them how most of them were titled "mob violence" or "mob fury" etc... and how 99% of them were taken from behind police lines with the "antagonists" seen throwing stones etc...! Talk about embedded journalism, he said...I questioned myself on how many times I had unwittingly swallowed and accepted the perverse representation of the facts...the truth is that society as whole needs to be sensitised to the mind games indulged in by the media...
many questions arise: why would the Hindu, , not allow an advertisement to be taken out? Why would they choose to represent a one sided version? Who are the vested interests behind the events and the media "gag"? How are the Law College incidents and the High Court incidents related and what do they signify in an election year? What challenging alternatives can we come up with to the existing media, knowing how, unchallenged, the media empire dictates govt. policy in the US, UK and Australia? (Please let me know if I can help in anyway, and how we can take the action forward. (Hope all of you are physically okay, though the damage runs much deeper. A breakdown of the systems handed down to us by the Brits will always be on the cards though.
Suo Motu matter in respect of police atrocity in the High Court
COURT NO. 1
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.CHANDRU
TO BE HEARD ON MONDAY THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2009 at 2.30 P.M
(SITTING IN THE CHIEF JUSTICE'S COURT)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1. WP.3335/2009 SUO MOTU
(TAKEN UP) (PIL)
***************** ( Concluded ) *****************
COURT NO. 1
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN
TO BE HEARD ON MONDAY THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2009 at 10.30 A.M.
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.CHANDRU
TO BE HEARD ON MONDAY THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2009 at 2.30 P.M
(SITTING IN THE CHIEF JUSTICE'S COURT)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1. WP.3335/2009 SUO MOTU
(TAKEN UP) (PIL)
***************** ( Concluded ) *****************
COURT NO. 1
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN
TO BE HEARD ON MONDAY THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2009 at 10.30 A.M.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Citizens Statement Condemning TN Govt's War on Free Speech
This statement was adopted at a meeting held on 1 March, 2009. The statement was released to the media, and will be sent to the Government. A number of artists, led by Nateshan and S. Sunil Kumar painted the wall outside Chandralekha/Sadanand Menon's house facing the Besant Nagar beach with murals in defence of free speech.
Citizen's Statement Condemning the Tamilnadu Government's War Against Free Speech
1 March, 2009
As citizens who place a high premium on the freedom of expression and the democratic ideal, we condemn the violence unleashed by the State Government and its police force on lawyers, judges, clients including a large number of women, court staff, court property and private property on 19 February, 2009. The police violence is being justified as a retaliatory act in response to some lawyers resisting arrest. The fact, however, remains that a massive police force armed to the teeth has forced its entry into the High Court without the express permission of the Court authorities.
The manner in which the police engaged in hot pursuit and returned to wreak violence in several separate encounters indicates an intent to terrorise, with the mandate to do so having been authorised by very high offices. The spectacle of law enforcement authorities going on a rampage demeans the image of the authority. That this deplorable act was triggered, at least partly if not wholly, by the Tamilnadu Government's growing frustration at the lawyers' continued demand for action to mitigate the humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka is public knowledge. Seen in this light, the police action of 19 February is clearly an act designed to strike at the roots of democracy and free speech. The act is extraordinary because of the audacity shown by the State in invading the premises of no less an institution than the High Court. If even hallowed institutions such as the judiciary are not spared the batons of the police, what chance does a common person have to express dissent without inviting violent retribution from the State. The court has been the only institution capable of reining in the police and holding this force accountable. Seen in this context, it is clear that the violent act of 19 February is intended as a warning to the judiciary about the consequences of being strict on the police and State.
Indeed, police violence and intimidation is a routine affair and one of the key tools deployed by the State to suppress dissent – be it by land-losers fighting to retain their lands, or slum dwellers fighting for due notice before eviction. A Government that does not know how to solicit opinions and conduct consultations in a non-threatening atmosphere is a Government that does not know how to perform in a democracy. If people are pushed to the extreme to express their opinion, the fault primarily lies with the Government for having failed to provide the right atmosphere and avenues to allow people to voice their views and be heard.
We extend our solidarity to all those who were victimised on 19 February in the Madras High Court premises, and to all others who have been intimidated and hurt by State actors for expressing their point of view.
In the immediate instance of the 19 February violence, we, as concerned citizens who believe in the rule of law and constitutional principles, demand that the Government of Tamilnadu should:
1. Publish a white paper naming the authorities who authorized the entry and subsequent action of the police force in the High Court.
2. Take stringent action against the police officers responsible for the incidents of 19 February, 2009.
3. Dissolve all Government appointed enquiry committees and extend its full cooperation to the Court-appointed committee.
4. The Government should pay for treatment of victims of police violence, and for restoration and repair of damaged property.
5. Demonstrate its commitment to free speech by easing restrictions on people's right to congregate, associate and express their opinions.
Endorsed by:
Sadanand Menon, art critic and journalist
Raj Cherubal
Madhumita Dutta, Corporate Accountability Desk.
Karen Coelho, Academic
Florina Benoit
Gladston Xavier
V. Krishna Ananth, lawyer
TSS Mani, Human rights activist
Nityanand Jayaraman, Independent journalist
V. Suresh
D. Nagasaila
Jeny Dolly, Youth for Social Change
See videos
At least 3 videos have been uploaded to the www.madrashighcourt.org website. We invite you to visit the website, go to the videos section and see these videos
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)