பிராமணாள் கபே மூடப்பட்டது – நள்ளிரவில் காலிசெய்யப் பட்டது – பார்ப்பனர் பயந்து விட்டாரா, மிரட்டப் பட்டாரா ?

பிராமணாள் கபே மூடப்பட்டது – நள்ளிரவில் காலி செய்யப் பட்டது பார்ப்பனர் பயந்து விட்டாரா,  மிரட்டப் பட்டாரா ?

திகவின் பிரச்சார நாளிதழ் “விடுதலை”யின் படி, “சிறீரங்கத்தில் பிராமணாள் பெயர் உணவு விடுதி மூடப் பட்டது  –  நள்ளிரவில் கடையைக் காலி செய்தனர்’,  என்றுள்ளது.  இத்தனை நாள் தைரியமாக இருந்தார், இந்து அமைப்புகள் அவருக்குத் துணையாக இருந்தன என்றெல்லாம் திக கூட்டங்கள் வர்ணித்து வந்துள்ளன. பார்ப்பன ஜெயலலிதா முதலமைச்சராக இருப்பதால், இந்த பார்ப்பன ஹோட்டல் முளைத்துள்ளது என்றெல்லாம் பேசி, எழுதி பிரச்சாரம் செய்தனர். பிறகு எப்படி அவர் இரவோடு இரவாக கடையை மூடிவிட்டு, காலி செய்து கொண்டு போனார் என்று தெரியவில்லை. முதலில் “விடுதலியில்” உள்ளதை பார்ப்போம்:

சிறீரங்கத்தில் பிராமணாள் பெயர் உணவு விடுதி மூடப் பட்டது –  நள்ளிரவில் கடையைக் காலி செய்தனர்: திருச்சி, நவ.7, 2012- சிறீரங்கம் ரங்கநகர் சாலையில் கிருஷ்ணய்யர் பிராமணாள் கபே (ஓட்டல்) என்ற பெயரில் மணிகண்டன் பார்ப்பனர் நடத்தி வந்தார்.  திடீரென்று பிராமணாள் என்ற சொல்லை விளம்பரப் பலகையில் புகுத்தினார். அந்த உணவு விடுதியின் பெயர்ப் பலகையில் உள்ள பிராமணாள் என்ற பெயரை அகற்றுமாறு திருச்சி மாவட்ட திராவிடர் கழகம் சார்பில் கடந்த ஜூலை 20 ஆம் தேதி அந்த உணவு விடுதியின் உரிமையாளர் மணிகண்டன் பார்ப்பனரிடம் வலி யுறுத்தப்பட்டது. மேலும் திருவரங்கம் காவல் நிலையத்தில் புகார் அளிக்கப்பட்டது. அதைத் தொடர்ந்து திராவிடர் கழகத் தலைவர், தமிழர் தலைவர் கி.வீரமணி அவர்கள் செப்டம்பர் 20 ஆம் தேதி தமிழ்நாடு முதலமைச்சரின் முக்கிய கவனத்திற்கு  அறிக்கை வெளியிட்டிருந்தார்.

 

காவல்துறை அனுமதி மறுப்பு: இந்நிலையில் திருவரங்கத்தில் ஜாதி ஒழிப்புப் பொதுக்கூட்டம் நடத்த கழகம் சார்பில் அனுமதி கோரியிருந்தது; ஆனால் காவல்துறை அனுமதி மறுத்தது. மூன்று முறை தொடர்ந்து காவல் துறை அனுமதி மறுத்தது. இந்நிலையில், மதுரை உயர்நீதிமன்ற கிளையில் வழக்குத் தொடர்ந்து அனுமதி பெற்று கடந்த ஞாயிறன்று திருவானைக் காவலில் மாபெரும் பொதுக்கூட்டம் நடந்தது (4.11.2012).

போராட்டம் அறிவிப்பு: அப்பொதுக் கூட்டத்தில் பிராமணாள் ஓட்டல் பெயரை உடனடியாக அகற்ற வேண்டும். இல்லையெனில் அகற்றுகின்றவரை போராட்ட நடவடிக்கையைக் கழகம் மேற்கொள்ளும். மேலும் வரும் டிசம்பர் ஒன்றாம் தேதி இப்போராட்டத் திற்கான அறிவிப்பினை வெளியிடுவேன் என்று தமிழர் தலைவர் கி.வீரமணி அவர்கள் திருவானைக் காவல் பொதுக்கூட்டத்தில் அறிவித்தார்.

 

நள்ளிரவில் அகற்றம்: இந்நிலையில் அந்த உணவு விடுதி கட்டடத்தின் உரிமையாளர் (பாவை டவர்ஸ்) ராஜா, மணி கண்டன் பார்ப்பனரிடம் கடையை உடனடியாக காலி செய்யுமாறு கூறியுள்ளார். அதைத் தொடர்ந்து   நேற்று (6.11.2012) நள்ளிரவு திடீரென்று  கிருஷ்ணய்யர் பிராமணாள் கபே உணவு விடுதியை மணிகண்டன் முழுமையாக கடையை இழுத்து மூடி காலி செய்தார்[1]. பிராமணாள் கபே பெயர் பலகையும் அகற்றி எடுத்துச் சென்றார்.

மீண்டும் பிராமணாள் முளைத்தால்… : வேறு இடத்தில் இதே மணிகண்டன் உணவு விடுதியைத் திறந்து அதிலும் பிராமணாள் பெயரைப் புகுத்தினால், அதனை எதிர்த்தும் திராவிடர் கழகம் போராட்டம் நடத்தும் என்றும் தெரிவித்துக் கொள்ளப்படுகிறது[2].

இப்படி அவர்களுடைய செய்தி உள்ளது.

வீரமணி பேசியதில் இரண்டு விஷய்யங்கள் கவனிக்க வேண்டியதுள்ளது. ஏனெனில், தினத்தந்தி[3] மற்றும் தினகரன்[4] அவரது பேச்சை வேறுவிதமாக வெளியிட்டிருந்தது[5].  அவற்றை முந்தைய இடுகையில் அவர் சொல்லியபடியே பதிவு செய்துள்ளதை வசதிக்காகத் திரும்ப கீழே கொடுக்கிறேன்[6].

கட்டுப்பாடுள்ள இயக்கம்: இது கட்டுப்பாடு மிகுந்த இயக்கம், தலைமை கட்டளையிட்டால் நூலிழை பிறழாமல் நடந்துகொள்ளக் கூடியவர்கள். (இந்த நேரத்தில் கழகத் தலைவர் கட்டளை ஒன்றைப் பிறப்பித்தார். அனைவரும் ஒரு நிமிடம் எழுந்திருங்கள் என்றார் அனைவரும் எழுந்து நின்றனர். அனைவரும் அமருங்கள் என்றார்; அனைவரும் அமர்ந்தனர் – இதனைச் சுட்டிக்காட்டி  இந்தக் கட்டுப்பாட்டுக்குப்  பெயர்தான்  கருஞ்சட்டைப்  பட்டாளம்  –  திராவிடர்  கழகம் என்று  குறிப்பிட்டார்[7].தனிப் பட்டவர் மீது காழ்ப்புணர்வு இல்லை: நாங்கள் மான உணர்வுக்காக இந்தப் போராட்டத்தை நடத்துகிறோம். யார்மீதும் எங்களுக்குத் தனிப்பட்ட முறையில் பகை இல்லை. காழ்ப்பும் கிடையாது. இந்தக்  கூட்டம்  முடிந்தவுடன்  யாரும்  அந்த உணவு விடுதி  பக்கம் கூட  செல்லக் கூடாது –  வீட்டுக்கு நேராகப் போக வேண்டும்.

“எழுந்திரு” என்றால் எழுந்து கொள்வது, “உட்கார்” என்றல் உட்கார்ந்து கொள்வது என்ற நிலையில் உள்ளார்கள் என்றால், வேறெந்த கட்டளையிட்டாலும், அவ்வாறே செய்வார்கள் என்றுதான் ஆகிறது. “இந்தக் கூட்டம் முடிந்தவுடன் யாரும் அந்த உணவுவிடுதி பக்கம் கூட செல்லக் கூடாது  –  வீட்டுக்கு நேராகப் போக வேண்டும்”, என்று சொன்னது மறைமுகமாக சொன்னதை செய்துவிடு என்பது போல உள்ளதோ என்னமோ? ஆகவே, ஒருவேளை கூட்டம் முடிந்தவுடன், திகவினர் அந்த உணவு விடுதி கட்டடத்தின் உரிமையாளர் (பாவை டவர்ஸ்) ராஜாவிடம் சென்று மிரட்டினரா அல்லது நேரிடையாகவே மணி கண்டன் பார்ப்பனரிடம் கடையை உடனடியாக காலி செய்யுமாறு பயமுறுத்தினரா அல்லது ராஜாவின் மூலம் வற்புறுத்தப்பட்டாரா என்பது தெரியவில்லை. ஆகவே, “அந்த உணவு விடுதிகட்டடத்தின் உரிமையாளர்  (பாவைடவர்ஸ்)  ராஜா,  மணிகண்டன் பார்ப்பனரிடம் கடையை உடனடியாக காலி செய்யுமாறு கூறியுள்ளார்” என்பதற்கான அர்த்தம் தெரியவில்லை. பிராமணர்களின் மீது இப்படி குறிப்பாக தாக்குதல் நடத்தி வருவது, அவர்களே சொல்கின்றது போல பாசிஸத் தன்மையினைத்தான் எடுத்துக் காட்டுகிறது[8]. மற்ற ஜாதிக்காரர்களின் கடைகளை விட்டுவிட்டு, பிராமணர் கடைகளை மட்டும் மிரட்டுவது, இப்படி ஏதோ நாட்டிலேயே மிக முக்கிய விஷயம் போல தினசரி வந்து கலாட்டா செய்வது, ஆபாசமாக கமென்ட் செய்து விட்டு போவது, கூட்டம் போட்டு மிரட்டுவது, இணைத்தளங்களில் அவதூறு செய்வது[9] முதலிய காரியங்கள் அத்தகையத் தன்மையினைத் தான் வெளிப்படுத்துகிறது.

மறுபடியும் மிரட்டல்: இத்தனையும் நடந்த பிறகு, “மீண்டும் பிராமணாள் முளைத்தால்: வேறு இடத்தில் இதே மணிகண்டன் உணவு விடுதியைத் திறந்து அதிலும் பிராமணாள் பெயரைப் புகுத்தினால், அதனை எதிர்த்தும் திராவிடர் கழகம் போராட்டம் நடத்தும் என்றும் தெரிவித்துக் கொள்ளப்படுகிறது”[10], என்கிறார்கள்.

மீண்டும் பிராமணாள் முளைத்தால்: வேறு இடத்தில் இதே மணிகண்டன் உணவு விடுதியைத் திறந்து அதிலும் பிராமணாள் பெயரைப் புகுத்தினால், அதனை எதிர்த்தும் திராவிடர் கழகம் போராட்டம் நடத்தும் என்றும் தெரிவித்துக் கொள்ளப்படுகிறது[11].

இதே பெயரில் கர்நாடகா, கேரளா மாநிலங்களில் ஓட்டல்கள் உள்ளன என்று இணைத்தளங்களில் பலர் எடுத்துக் கட்டியுள்ளனர். பிறகு, அங்கும் சென்று இவ்வாறு மிரட்டுவார்களா?

© வேதபிரகாஷ்

08-11-2012


[7] இது “கட்டுப்பாடு” என்பதா, இல்லை சொன்னதை செய்வோம் என்ற நிலையில் உள்ளார்கள் என்பதா?

செவ்வாய், நவம்பர் 06, 2012  VIDUTHALAI EPAPER

http://viduthalaidaily.blogspot.in/2012/11/blog-post_6.html

குறிச்சொற்கள்: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

4 பதில்கள் to “பிராமணாள் கபே மூடப்பட்டது – நள்ளிரவில் காலிசெய்யப் பட்டது – பார்ப்பனர் பயந்து விட்டாரா, மிரட்டப் பட்டாரா ?”

  1. vedaprakash Says:

    Madras High Court
    S.Latha Raghavan vs The Commissioner Of Police
    on 22 February, 2007
    BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
    http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1481109/
    DATED : 22/02/2007

    CORAM

    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM

    AND

    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA

    H.C.P.(MD) No.423 of 2006

    S.Latha Raghavan .. Petitioner

    vs

    1.The Commissioner of Police

    Tiruchirapalli City

    Tiruchirapalli

    2.The Joint Secretary to Government

    of Tamilnadu

    Public (L & O) Department

    Fort St. George

    Chennai 600 009.

    3.The Secretary to Government of India

    Ministry of Home Affiars

    (Department of Internal Security)

    North Block

    New Delhi 110 001.

    .. Respondents

    Habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records relating to order in No.C.P.O./T.C./I.S/NSA/D.O.No.01/2006, dated 10.12.2006 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to set the detenu R.Raghavan, son of Raman, now confined in Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli, at liberty.

    For Petitioner : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan

    For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Samuel Raj

    Additional Public Prosecutor

    :ORDER

    (Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)

    Seeking to quash an order of detention passed by the first respondent in No.C.P.O./T.C./I.S/NSA/D.O.No.01/2006 under the provisions of the National Security Act, the petitioner who is the wife of the detenu by name Raghavan, has brought forth this petition.

    2.The order under challenge is perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

    3.As could be seen from the order of detention, it came to be passed under the following circumstances:

    A life-size concrete statue of Thiru E.V.Ramasamy, founder of Dravidar Kazhagam, was to be installed near Srirangam Police Station by the members of Periyar Thathuva Maiyam, and the same was covered with sacks and kept on the pedestal for unveiling. It was also in front of the Rajagopuram of Srirangam Temple. It was objected to by the Hindu Organizations. Following the threat, the members of Periyar Thathuva Maiyam were giving protection to the statue to be unveiled. Apart from that, the matter was brought to the notice of the police also. The police personnel were also deployed. While the matter stood thus, on 7.12.2006 at about 04.45 hours, the detenu along with others armed with deadly weapons and hammers came to the spot where the statue was kept, and on the instigation of the detenu to damage the statue, the persons armed with hammers, climbed and damaged the statue. At that time, this was intervened by the persons who were guarding the statue, and the policemen standing nearby. The police personnel also apprehended four of the accused, while the detenu Raghavan escaped from the place. Thereafter, on a complaint given by one Saravanan, a case came to be registered by Srirangam Police Station in Crime No.749/2006 under Sections 147, 148, 153 (A) of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Properties (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act and Sec.25(1) of Indian Arms Act. The case was taken up for investigation by the Inspector of Police, Srirangam Police Station, and he searched for the detenu and arrested him on 7.12.2006 itself. The accused detenu was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tiruchirapalli, and he was remanded to judicial custody till 21.12.2006.

    4.Under the circumstances, the sponsoring authority placed the matter before the first respondent as to the act committed by the detenu and his henchmen. After the perusal of the materials placed by the sponsoring authority, the detaining authority took the view that the act of the detenu has created a sense of panic and terror among the common public and also created a feeling of insecurity, and the damage of the statue was witnessed, and it has hurt not only the feelings of the persons concerned with Periyar Thathuva Maiyam, but also the minds of the people of the entire State, as a result of which the public order and tranquility were paralyzed. Finding that the disturbance caused by such disruptive act of the detenu and his henchmen, cannot be considered as a normal law and order problem, but as disturbance of public order and tranquility, the authority felt that it was a fit case where the provisions of the National Security Act have got to be invoked, and the order of detention could be passed against him. Accordingly, orders have been passed.

    5.Admittedly, the said order of detention was passed on 10.12.2006, and it was communicated on 11.12.2006. Apart from that, a representation was made on 20.12.2006, and the other procedural formalities were considered.

    6.Now, the petitioner who is the wife of the detenu, has challenged the order on two grounds:

    Firstly, there are number of discrepancies found in the order. A reading of the impugned order would indicate that there was no independent application of mind. According to the sponsoring authority, the Inspector of Police, Srirangam Police Station, arrested him at about 11.30 A.M. on 7.12.2006 at Amma Mandapam. The arrest card which was also produced before the Court and also before the authority, would also indicate the same. That apart, there was a telegraphic message issued by the petitioner herein directly to the detaining authority, which would clearly indicate that he was arrested in the early hours of that morning. The telegraphic message was issued at about 11.00 A.M. Though it was available in the hands of the detaining authority, they have not considered the same.

    7.Added further the learned Counsel that there was a confessional statement recorded by the Investigator, wherein it is found that he was arrested at about 10.30 A.M.; that if to be so, all the discrepancies are found; that these discrepancies would clearly indicate that there was no application of mind; rather, there was non-application; and that had this telegraphic message and other materials issued by the petitioner to the detaining authority, been considered, it would have led the authority not to pass such an order. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel relied on a decision of the Apex Court reported in 1989 SUPREME COURT CASES (CRI) 153 (AYYA V. STATE OF U.P.). The learned Counsel would further submit that the latest law on the subject is stipulated by the Supreme Court in 2007(1) CRIMES 79 (SC) (USHA AGARWAL V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS).

    8.Secondly, the learned Counsel would submit that it is an admitted fact that he was arrested on 7.12.2006; that the order of detention was passed on 10.12.2006; that it was communicated on 11.12.2006; but, the booklet was not given at that time; that in the communication addressed by the jail authorities on 11.12.2006, it is mentioned that the petitioner herein can meet the detenu only after an interval of 15 days, that would be around 25th of that month; that if to be so, she was rather prevented from meeting him and get instructions therefor; that what was available with the detenu at that time was only the order of detention and not the booklet, and thus, he could not make effective representation; that under the circumstances, it was nothing but violation of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution in favour of the detenu; that the same has got to be considered, and hence, on these two grounds, the order of detention has got to be quashed.

    9.Countering the above contentions, it is contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that in the instant case, the detaining authority only on appraisement of all the circumstances as found in the order, which led to the registration of a criminal case against the detenu and others, and which also led the sponsoring authority to make the recommendation, has passed an order, which does not require to be disturbed. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further add that first of all, there is no discrepancy as alleged by the petitioner, for the reason that according to the petitioner, a telegraphic message was issued at about 11.00 A.M.; that the telegraphic message has no authenticity at all; that following the telegraphic message, there was no representation made; that according to the arrest card, the detenu was arrested at about 11.30 A.M.; that the telegraphic message was given at 11.00 A.M.; that even assuming to be so, only in anticipation of arrest, following an incident that took place in the morning at the place from which the detenu escaped, such a telegraphic message has been given; that the same was given at 11.00 A.M.; that in the arrest card, it is found as 11.30 A.M.; and that even this time factor is also found to be very trivial.

    10.Added further the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that in the instant case, so far as the telegraphic message is concerned, it cannot be given any authenticity and cannot be relied on also; and that it cannot be considered to be a relevant document. For that purpose, he relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1994 SUPREME COURT CASES (CRI) 229 (DISTT. MAGISTRATE V. R.KUMARAVEL).

    11.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further add that so far as the second contention was concerned, it is true that he was arrested on 7.12.2006; that it is also true that the order has been passed on 10.12.2006 and communicated on 11.12.2006; but, it is pertinent to point out that what was mentioned therein was that the petitioner can meet him at an interval of 15 days; that it is true that a communication was given by the jail authorities on 11.12.2006, wherein it has been mentioned that she could meet once at an interval of 15 days, which does not mean that she could meet him only after 15 days, but could meet within 15 days as mentioned therein; that it is a wrong interpretation of the communication; that there was no impediment for the petitioner in meeting her husband and get instructions therefor to make effective representation, and under the circumstances, both the grounds put forth by the petitioner herein, are not sufficient to set aside the order, and hence, the petition has got to be dismissed.

    12.The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made and also looked into the materials available, and in particular, the order of detention.

    13.As could be seen from the order, admittedly, a statue of Thiru E.V.Ramasamy, the founder of Dravidar Kazhagam, was to be installed and was to be unveiled shortly before the date of occurrence. Following an incident, a case came to be registered by Srirangam Police Station on 7.12.2006 in Crime No.749 of 2006 under Sections 147, 148, 153 (A) of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Properties (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act and Sec.25 (1) of Indian Arms Act. According to the State, at the time of the installation of the statue, there were objections from the Hindu Organizations, and in apprehension of any damage to the statue, the members belonging to Periyar Thathuva Maiyam, and also the police personnel on request were guarding the statue. The occurrence has taken place at about 4.45 A.M. on 7.12.2006 when the detenu along with his henchmen came with deadly weapons and on his instigation, they climbed and also damaged the statue, and there was intervention by the police personnel and also members of Periyar Thathuva Maiyam. Immediately, they were able to apprehend four of the assailants, and the detenu escaped from the place. He was arrested by the Inspector of Police, Srirangam Police Station, who took up investigation. He was also produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tiruchirappalli, and he was remanded to judicial custody till 21.12.2006. It is also an admitted position that an order came to be passed by the detaining authority on 10.12.2006, following a recommendation made by the sponsoring authority.

    14.Before going to consider the submissions made by the learned Counsel in his sincere attempt of assailing the order under challenge, the Court has to necessarily point out that in a democratic society like this, every citizen has got his own belief and has to practice different ideologies. In the case on hand, a statue was to be installed, and there was an objection raised by the Hindu Organizations. Under the circumstances, there was an apprehension whether any damage could be caused to the statue. Hence, the police personnel were deployed, and also the members of Periyar Thathuva Maiyam were available at that time to protect the statue. The occurrence has taken place at about 4.45 A.M. on 7.12.2006. At that time, four of the persons who made all their attempts in the damage of the statue and who were found along with the detenu, were actually apprehended and taken to the Police Station. Needless to say, it has created not only a sense of panic and terror, but also a feeling of insecurity among the public of that area, and there were incidents of stone pelting and also so many other incidents throughout the State. It could be seen that it has directly touched the public order and also tranquility, and they were paralyzed. It was witnessed by the State. Under the circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed.

    15.Coming to the contentions put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that both the grounds now urged before this Court seeking for quashing of the order, are not available for the petitioner. Even after considering those contentions, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not made out a ground or reason to set aside the order of detention passed. In the instant case, admittedly, he was arrested on 7.12.2006 following the registration of a criminal case by Srirangam Police Station in Crime No.749/2006. It is not in controversy that he was arrested on 7.12.2006. From the materials available and in particular, the arrest card, it could be seen that he was arrested at about 11.30 A.M. at Amma Mandapam, Tiruchirappalli. The learned Counsel took the Court to the copy of the telegraphic message issued by the petitioner directly to the detaining authority. From the receipt issued therefor, it could be seen that it was issued at about 11.00 A.M. The learned Counsel wanted to show that when this telegraphic message was very well available in the hands of the detaining authority, it should have been considered by him, and the non-consideration of the telegraphic message issued by the petitioner at about 11.00 A.M. would be fatal to the order. That apart, he would further say that there is also discrepancy found, and this discrepancy is very vital; that according to the police, he was arrested at about 11.30 A.M. as per the arrest card; but, the telegraphic message was issued at 11.00 A.M., and thus, there is discrepancy which will go to the root of the matter.

    16.In support of his contention, he relied on two decisions of the Apex Court reported in 1989 SUPREME COURT CASES (CRI) 153 (AYYA V. STATE OF U.P.) and in 2007(1) CRIMES 79 (SC) (USHA AGARWAL V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS). In answer to the above, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor came with the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1994 SUPREME COURT CASES (CRI) 229 (DISTT. MAGISTRATE V. R.KUMARAVEL).

    17.The Court perused the decisions now relied on by either side. First of all, it was a telegraphic message. The contention of the petitioner’s side cannot be accepted for more reasons than one. The petitioner wants to rely on a telegraphic message alleged to have been given by her at about 11.00 A.M. The telegraphic message is not an authenticated document. The Supreme Court had an occasion to consider such a situation in a case relied on by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and reported in 1994 SUPREME COURT CASES (CRI) 229 (DISTT. MAGISTRATE V. R.KUMARAVEL). In that case, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that a telegram has no authenticity unless confirmed by a subsequent signed application, representation or an affidavit. In the instant case, it is pertinent to point out that the telegraphic message was not followed by any representation made. It is an admitted position that a representation was made by the petitioner on 20.12.2006. Even in that representation also, the telegraphic message alleged to have been given at about 11.00 A.M. on 7.12.2006, was not referred to. The petitioner had no explanation why such a reference has not been made therein. The contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the fact that the issuance of telegraphic message was not referred to cannot be taken to be a relevant fact, and the non-mention of the same would, in no way, be fatal to such representation made. As far as the representation was concerned, it would not affect in any way. In a given case, like this, if the contention of the petitioner’s side that there was a telegraphic message given at about 11.00 A.M., and this telegraphic message has also been in the hands of the authority, but not considered by the detaining authority, and had it been considered, it would have taken the decision otherwise, is to be accepted, then the issuance of the telegraphic message itself should have been referred to, in the opinion of this Court, in the representation subsequently made on 20.12.2006. That apart, this Court is of the view that once it is not an authenticated document and not also followed by any subsequent representation made, it is highly doubtful whether it could be called as a material document. In the opinion of the Court, it has to be answered in negative.

    18.The learned Counsel also relied upon a confessional statement alleged to have been given by the detenu before the police officials, wherein the arrest time is shown as 10.30 A.M. This contention has got to be rejected for two reasons. Firstly, it was a confessional statement alleged to have been given by the detenu. Whether it is true or not is a subject-matter to be considered by the criminal Court, where the document was to be placed. Secondly, this confessional statement cannot form a basis for attacking the order now under challenge before this Court. Even assuming such a contention could be raised, that could be raised before a Court of criminal law, while questioning the time of arrest and not for quashing the order of detention like this. Now, at this juncture, so far as the first ground is concerned, this Court is unable to notice any merit and hence, it is rejected.

    19.As regards the second ground that the order was passed on 10.12.2006; that a communication by the jail authorities was also issued on 11.12.2006, wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner can meet the detenu only after an interval of 15 days, that would come around about 25th of the Month; that what was served upon the detenu was only the order of detention; that the booklet furnishing the materials, was not given, and hence, the petitioner as the next friend could not meet the detenu to get proper instructions for making effective representation, and this itself is in violation of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution, this Court is of the considered opinion that this ground is of no avail to the petitioner. A perusal of the communication made by the jail authorities on 11.12.2006 would clearly indicate that it does not mean that the petitioner could meet the detenu after an interval of 15 days, and thus, the petitioner had no impediment in meeting the detenu immediately; but, she has not done so, for which no fault could be attributed to the department. Under the circumstances, that ground also will not be helpful to the petitioner.

    20.For the foregoing reasons, both the grounds fail, and the detaining authority after making a full application of mind and taking into consideration the public order, has come to the conclusion that it is a fit case where the provisions of National Security Act have got to be invoked.

    21.Before concluding the order, this Court is of the view that in a case, where the public order and tranquility are affected or likely to be affected, and public peace is also in peril, the authority is called upon in exercise of the powers, to pass such an order. In the instant case, the above situation would be quite evident not only in the place of occurrence, but also throughout the State. Under the circumstances, the authority was perfectly correct in passing the order of detention.

    22.In the result, this habeas corpus petition deserves an order of dismissal, and accordingly, it is dismissed.

    To:

    1.The Commissioner of Police

    Tiruchirapalli City, Tiruchirapalli

    2.The Joint Secretary to Government

    of Tamilnadu

    Public (L & O) Department

    Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

    3.The Secretary to Government of India

    Ministry of Home Affiars

    (Department of Internal Security)

    North Block, New Delhi 110 001.

  2. vedaprakash Says:

    Madras High Court
    J.Geetha vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 April, 2007
    DATED:19.4.2007
    http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/372755/
    CORAM

    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA

    and

    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.A.K.SAMPATHKUMAR

    Habeas Corpus Petition No.110 of 2007

    J.Geetha .. Petitioner

    ..vs..

    1.State of Tamil Nadu

    rep. by its Secretary

    Public (Law & Order-G)Department

    Secretariat

    Chennai 600 009

    2.The Commissioner of Police

    Greater Chennai

    Egmore

    Chennai 600 006 .. Respondents

    Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records from the file of the 2nd respondent relating to the detention order made in No.2/NSA/2006 dated 16.12.2006, set aside the same and produce the detenu before this Hon’ble Court and set him at liberty. For petitioner : Mr.Su.Srinivasan

    For respondents : Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran

    Additional Public Prosecutor

    ORDER

    (Order of the Court was made by P.K.MISRA,J.)

    Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

    2. The order of detention under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) was passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai on 16.12.2006 and the same was executed on 18.12.2006. The detention order indicates that such order was passed with a view to preventing the detenu Jaishankar from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The grounds of detention dated 16.12.2006 were served on 20.12.2006. Such grounds indicate that the detenu and two other persons, namely, Tvl.Thanga Muthu.Krishnan and Ganapathi Ravi who belong to Hindu Makkal Katchi and Siva Sena political party were standing at the entrance of the Government Estate surrounded by about 25 members of public. Two persons, namely, Tvl.Srinivasan and Dayalan were proceeding in the opposite direction. Thiru Thanga.Muthukrishnan came out of the crowd and caught hold of the hand of Thiru Srinivasan by saying, "VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED"

    (Both of you wait. Listen my words. Read this notice-English translation)

    and also handed over pamphlets to both Tvl.Srinivasan and Dayalan. It is further stated that Tvl.Thanga.Muthukrishnan and Ganapathy Ravi issued such pamphlets also to others who are at the spot. It is further stated that the detenu addressed the gathering by saying, "VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED"

    (Further Thiru Jaishankar addressed the gathering by saying "Periyar statue was installed in front of Srirangam Ranganathar Temple. Like this can the Dravidar Kazhagam install Periyar statue either in front of a Mosque or a Church; if such a statue was installed by D.K.activists, that Muslims and Christians joined together would break and destroy all the Periyar statue in Tamil Nadu and would also murder all the D.K.activists."-English translation) He further warned the State Government by saying, "VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED"

    (He further warned the State Government by saying "The Government should not give permission to the Dravidar Kazhagam headed by Veeramani to hold conference on the coming 16th at Srirangam. If permission is granted we all should assemble there and indulge in violence and like Muslims throw stones at Sathan at Mecca during Huj pilgrimage and has Sabarimala devotees throw stones at Sathan in Sarankuthi (on the way to Sabarimala), we should throw stones at Periyar statue and that statue should be destroyed.-English translation). Thereafter, Thiru Srinivasan lodged a complaint at D7, Government Estate Police Station, Chennai City against the detenu, Thanga.Muthukrishnan and Ganapathi Ravi enclosing the pamphlets requesting the police to take action. The Inspector of Police, D7, Government Estate police station registered Cr.No.120/2006 u/s 341, 153(A), 505(1)(b) and (c) and 505(2) IPC and the Inspector of Police seized the pamphlets produced by the said Thiru Srinivasan and investigation was taken up by the Assistant Commissioner of Police. The Assistant Commissioner visited the spot and prepared rough sketch and observation mahazar and examined witnesses and recorded their statements. The detenu was arrested on 11.12.2006 at 20.45 hours at Central Railway Station, Chennai and was examined. His confessional statement was recorded. At the time of arrest it was also found that the detenu was in possession of 10 sets of such pamphlets which was seized under cover of Mahazar. Further interrogation revealed that subsequent to the damage of the Periyar statue at Srirangam in front of the Sri Aranganathar temple, the detenu prepared pamphlets instigating the general public to indulge in acts of violence and stated, "VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED"

    (can the Dravidar Kazhagam install Periyar statue either in front of a Mosque or a Church; if such a statue was installed by D.K.activists, that Muslims and Christians joined together would break and destroy all the Periyar statue in Tamil Nadu and would also murder all the D.K.activists.-English translation) and the detenu deliberately issued provocative statement with intention to create clashes between Dravida Kazhagam who are the non-believers of god and the Hindu believers in God and also to promote enmity between religion groups namely Hindus and Muslims and Hindus and Christians and to create chaos and confusion in the State and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The grounds of detention further disclose the detenu also conducted press meet at the Press Club at Government Estate on 11.12.2006, released pamphlets and distributed press note to the press personnel and asked them to give wide publicity. The press note contains the following: "VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED"

    (1.The Chief Minister is an accused because he permitted to install the Periyar statue.

    2.The court also accused because it did not grant interim injunction against installation.

    3.Creating confusion in Tamil Nadu by inciting clash between religions by asking whether the status could be installed in front of Church and Mosque.-English translation) It is further recited thus the detenu had deliberately issued the statement solely with intention to disturb the public peace and communal harmony in the peaceful State. Further in the press note, he went to the extent of criticizing the judicial system and accused the Hon’ble Court since the Hon’ble Court had not granted stay for the unveiling of the statue of Periyar at Srirangam. In paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention it is further stated as under: "3.Hence I am satisfied that Tr.Jaishankar issued objectionable notices and conducted press conference and further addressed the gathering and induced them to indulge in acts of violence among the Religions and tried to disturb communal harmony and to create communial clash leading to the disturbance of public tranquility and thereby affecting the maintenance of public order in the State. Further a reading of the pamphlets reveals that "VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED"

    (Further a reading of the pamphlets reveals that can the Dravidar Kazhagam install Periyar statue either in front of a Mosque or a Church; if such a statue was installed by D.K.activists, that Muslims and Christians joined together would break and destroy all the Periyar statue in Tamil Nadu and would also murder all the D.K.activists’-English translation) and this will encourage the innocent public to indulge in acts of violence.

    Further he uttered the words

    "VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED"

    (Further he uttered the words "the Government should not give permission to the Dravidar Kazhagam headed by Veeramani to hold conference on the coming 16th at Srirangam. If permission is granted we all should assemble there and indulge in violence and like Muslims throw stones at Sathan at Mecca during Huj pilgrimage and has sabarimala devotees throw stones at Sathan in Sarankuthi (on the way to Sabarimala), we should throw stones at Periyar statue and that statue should be destroyed.-English translation) (Translated version as indicated in this order is furnished by the learned counsel for the petitioner.)

    3. It appears that before the order of detention was passed, the wife of the detenu addressed a letter dated 14.12.2006 to the Commissioner of Police, the detaining authority and the same is extracted hereunder: "Respected Sir,

    My husband G.S.Jaishankar, was arrested at Chennai. I came to know about this proposed bitten him under NSA. This information I came to only through media report. So for I was not communicated of the arrested my husband. The allegation against him ANE false and politically motivated. Signly withdrawn the case against him. Yours sincerely

    sd/-14.12.06

    (J.GEETHA)"

    (counsel now expresses that the word ‘bitten’ was a typographical mistake and the correct word was `to detain’.)

    It is not in dispute that such letter was received by the Commissioner on 18.12.2006 by which date the order of detention had already been signed. However, the detention order was served and executed on 18.12.2006. It appears that on 23.12.2006 the present petitioner who is the wife of the detenu sent a representation to the State Government as well as to the Commissioner praying for revocation of the order of detention. It further appears that the detenu himself sent a representation dated 23.12.2006 through the Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Chennai addressed to the Commissioner of Police. The English translation of such document has been filed as part of the additional typed set of papers by the petitioner. Such representation by the detenu is extracted in extenso hereunder. "From 23.12.2006

    S.Jaishankar

    Preventive Detenue(NSA)

    Central Prison, Puzhal

    Chennai.

    Thru’

    The Superintendent

    Central Prison

    Chennai

    To

    The Commissioner of Police

    Chennai City

    Egmore,Chennai

    Vanakkam

    I came to know at 2.30 p.m. on 18.12.2006 about my detention under NSA vide your order dated 16.12.2006.

    I want to make a detailed representation to set aside the detention order, for which I need the following documents:

    1. It was stated that pamphlet was circulated on 11.12.2006, which contained "can the Dravidar Kazhagam Activists install Periyar Statue in front of either Mosque or Church in Tamil Nadu". If Dravidar Kazhagam activists install a statue, the Muslims and Christians will join together and would break and destroy all the Periyar statutes in Tamil Nadu. Further, they would cut and murder the Dravidar Kazhagam people. The aforesaid pamphlet was not supplied to me in the booklet furnished to me. Therefore, I may be given the copy of the aforesaid pamphlet.

    2. Other than the aforesaid pamphlet I may also be given a copy of the press statement, which was said to have been released in the press conference, which was addressed by me.

    3. It was also stated that a confession statement has been obtained from me. Give me the copy of the said confession statement of me.

    4. While I was produced before the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, I had said that "I was arrested in the press conference". The Magistrate had made note of that and obtained my signature. Give me the copy of the order, which contained the endorsement of the Learned Magistrate. 4A. Copy of the representation of my wife dated 14.12.2006, which was sent by my wife.

    5. Pursuant to my arrest on 11.12.2006 a press statement was issued by the Commissioner of Police and the Director General of Police on the same night wherein it was stated that "I am going to be detained in NSA". I may be given a copy of the press statement issued through the Police Department on 11.12.2006.

    6. It was stated that my bail application is pending before the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate and the same court had granted bail in similar cases, there is a possibility that I would be granted bail hence, the detention is necessary. Therefore, furnish the copies of the orders that were granted by the said court in similar matters in the last one year.

    7. Few witnesses (Nandakumar, Azad, Mohan and Arumugham) have given statement that was furnished in the booklet. It contained that they came to know by reading the newspapers that "I addressed to the press conference that news has appeared in news papers and by such an news I have incited violence among Hindus, Christians and Muslims and created fear and attempted to create communal violence in the State by which attempted to de-establish the State and with intention of creating communal violence by which everyone would attack each other". Therefore, furnish me the copies of the newspapers that were said to have published my press conference, which had the tenor of creating violence. The above said documents may kindly be furnish immediately either to me or to my wife.

    Yours sincerely,

    sd/-

    S.Jaishankar."

    4. On 26.12.2006 the Government issued an order approving the order of detention and subsequently on the basis of the recommendation of the Advisory Board, the order of detention was confirmed by the State by order dated 2.3.2007. The post-detention representation sent by the wife of the detenu was rejected by the Government on 5.1.2007. The pre-detention representation made by the wife of the detenu which had already been extracted in extenso was replied to by the Commissioner of Police on 30.12.2006. The reply is extracted hereunder: "That the detenue was detained under preventive detention to prevent him from indulging into activities that are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

    Your wife Mrs.Geetha was informed about your arrest by way of telegram on 11.12.2006 itself and by 18.12.2006 registered letter she was also communicated about your preventive detention." A representation dated 23.12.2006 made by the detenu himself which has already been extracted seeking for several documents was replied to by the State Government on 14.2.2007. The English translation of such document is available as part of the additional typed set. The entire reply dated 14.2.2007 is extracted hereunder: "The representation dated 27.12.2006 addressed to the Commissioner of Police, sent thru’ the Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai to make representation against the detention order made under National Security Act, 1980 was carefully considered by the Government. Since the representation was not acceptable, I hereby inform you that the said representation is rejected by the Government.

    2.Pamphlet, Confession Statement and Remand Order are already furnished to you in page numbers 5 to 6, 44 and 56 to 57 respectively in the paper book supplied to you. I further inform you that the Inspector of Police has not given any press statement with regard to your arrest on 11.12.2006.

    3.All the documents that were relied upon for the detention, had already been furnished to you. Therefore, I inform you that there is no necessity to furnish documents to you."

    5. In the abovesaid factual matrix, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions:

    (i)The detaining authority has mechanically passed the order of detention without application of mind inasmuch as the detaining authority has not gone through the so called press note relied upon in internal page 3 of the grounds of detention. Similarly, the detaining authority has not gone through the so called pamphlet relied upon in paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention. (ii)Even assuming that the detaining authority has gone through any such materials, the protection guaranteed under Article 22(5) has not been complied with inasmuch as the copy of the press note and the pamphlet available in the booklet furnished to the detenu did not contain the recital to the following effect. "1.The Chief Minister is an accused because he permitted to install the Periyar statue.

    2.The court also accused because it did not grant interim injunction against installation.

    3.Creating confusion in Tamil Nadu by inciting clash between religions by asking whether the statue could be installed in front of Church and Mosque."

    (iii)Even though the detenu had made a specific request for furnishing such press note which contains the recited portion (in page No.3 and the pamphlets which contain the portion recited in page 4 paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention which have already been extracted) were not furnished to the detenu and a mechanical reply was given and that too after a long lapse of time on 2.3.2007 stating that all the documents had been furnished. By the above process the detenu was deprived of an opportunity of making effective representation. (iv)The representation sent by the wife of the detenu before passing of the order of detention was also not considered by application of mind and on the other hand, a mechanical reply was given by the detaining authority. (v)The order of detention has been passed in a pre-determined manner inasmuch as on 11.12.2006 itself even before there was any proposal by the sponsoring authority for passing any order of detention, the detaining authority herself has issued a press release which appeared in all the newspapers on 12.12.2006 indicating that it had already been decided to detain the detenu under the National Security Act which would indicate that the detaining authority has proceeded in a pre-determined manner.

    6. In the counter affidavit filed, nothing is indicated about the existence of the press note which was purportedly relied upon by the detaining authority as apparent from recital in page 3 of the grounds of detention. The extracted portions specifically indicate that the detaining authority had relied upon the fact that the press note had contained several statements which have been extracted. But, it now transpires no such press note was available before the detaining authority. This would indicate non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Similarly, the further recital in paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention to the following effect. "Further a reading of the pamphlets reveals that " can the Dravidar Kazhagam install Periyar statue either in front of a Mosque or a Church; if such a statue was installed by D.K.activists, that Muslims and Christians joined together would break and destroy all the Periyar statue in Tamil Nadu and would also murder all the D.K.activists." also appears to be based on non-existent material as now it is conceded by the learned counsel for the State that the pamphlets so available at pages 5 and 6 of the booklet do not contain such extracted portion. Those materials were not before the detaining authority and yet the detaining authority has purported to rely upon such materials. This would indicate non-application of mind to the materials on record. On the other hand, if such materials were there and had been relied upon, as required under Article 22(5) the detaining authority should have furnished the copies of such materials to enable the detenu to make a representation. In either case the order of detention can be stated to be vitiated either because there is non-application of mind or there is no compliance with the requirement of Constitution under Article 22(5).

    7. In this context it is also to be noticed that the detenu himself had made a specific representation on 23.12.2006 which apparently was received on 27.12.2006 wherein the detenu had specifically requested the authorities to furnish the copies of the press note relied upon in page 3 of the grounds of detention and the pamphlets containing the extracted portions which had been specifically relied upon in paragraph 3 in page 4 of the grounds of detention. Such representation was simply rejected by saying that the copies of the documents were furnished and the copies of the documents were available at pages 5 and 6 of the booklet already served on the detenue.

    8. We have repeatedly called upon the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to point out from pages 5 and 6 regarding such recital in paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention which have been extracted in earlier part of paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention. But, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has stated that though the said extracted portion was not available in the pamphlets at pages 5 and 6 of the booklet, such recital is available in the complaint made by Thiru Srinivasan and 161 statement which are available in the booklet. This explanation given for the first time was not reflected in the reply to the representation dated 23.12.2006 received on 27.12.2006 nor a whisper has been made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2

    9. We are afraid that such belated explanation furnished in course of hearing of this petition cannot come to the help of the State. It is apparent while passing the detention order the detaining authority has simply extracted some materials from here and there without understanding the background of such statement which would obviously indicate the non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority.

    10. The order of preventive detention has the effect of curtailing the liberty of a citizen of India and therefore, the authorities vested with such wide powers are required to bestow careful attention to the relevant materials on record and it is not expected that such an order would be passed in a cavalier fashion without properly referring to the relevant materials. In our opinion, the order of detention is vitiated on account of such non-application of mind and further by the fact when a specific representation was made, a clear position was not indicated to the detenu. When a representation was made seeking for those documents, atleast the authorities should have explained the matter by saying that there was no such pamphlets containing the extracted words nor there was any such press note containing such expression and such materials were available in the statement of some other witnesses.

    11. Apart from the above, the fact that the representation of the detenu seeking for such some documents for the purpose of making a representation has remained pending till 2.3.2007, that is to say, for a period of more than two months itself is shocking. If such documents were not available the authorities should have given a reply much earlier so that the detenu could have pursued his remedies or could have made another representation. By keeping silent on the request made by the detenu regarding furnishing of some documents which on the face of it appeared to be quite relevant itself has the effect of vitiating the order of detention inasmuch as the detenu is not afforded the earliest opportunity of making representation as contemplated in Article 22 of the Constitution of India.

    12. It is also contended that the order of detention has been passed by the Commissioner of Police in a pre-determined manner without independent application of mind. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in paragraph 5 of the representation dated 23.12.2006 received on 27.12.2006 it had been specifically stated "5.Pursuant to my arrest on 11.12.2006 a press statement was issued by the Commissioner of Police and the Director General of Police on the same night wherein it was stated that "I am going to be detained in NSA". I may be given a copy of the press statement issued through the Police Department on 11.12.2006."

    13. In course of hearing of this matter we have pointedly asked the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as to whether such a press statement has been issued through Police Department on 11.12.2006 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor was constrained to admit the fact that such a press statement was issued through Police Department. Further, it is surprising to note that in the reply to such representation it has been indicated,

    "I further inform you that the Inspector of Police has not given any press statement with regard to your arrest on 11.12.2006."

    This only indicates that the authority who replied was either very clever or naive. In the representation, the detenu had specifically made a request about press statement of the Director General of Police and the Commissioner of Police (Commissioner of Police is the detaining authority). The detenu wanted a copy of the press statement. The reply indicates as if no such press statement has been made by the Inspector of Police, but the reply is completely silent about the press statement made by the Commissioner and no reason is given as to why such copy could not be made available to the detenu. Since the issuance of such press statement is no longer in dispute, as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has been constrained to admit that such press statement was issued on 11.12.2006 which appeared in newspapers on 12.12.2006, it is apparent that the order of detention dated 16.12.2007 is an outcome of the pre-determined opinion of the Police Department and not on the basis of independent assessment of factual scenario. It is no doubt true that the detaining authority has passed the order on the basis of subjective satisfaction. But that does not mean that the detaining authority should not have an open mind and he should proceed in a pre-determined manner. In the background of materials indicating non-application of mind which we have already referred to, this aspect also assumes more significance.

    14. Apart from the above, it is not disputed that a communication was sent by the wife of the detenu on 14.12.2006 which was received admittedly on 18.12.2006. The reply which had already been extracted simply indicates about the fact that the arrest of the detenu had been communicated. However, nothing is indicated about the other aspects highlighted in such letter. It is no doubt true that such representation was received after the order of detention had been made on 16.12.2006 in which event, the detaining authority should have considered such representation for the purpose of examining as to whether the order of detention is to be revoked by the detaining authority himself which is contemplated in the statutory provision. It is well known that before the approval from the State Government the detaining authority himself has the jurisdiction to revoke the order of detention. In the letter written by the wife of the detenu it had been indicated that the detenu had been falsely implicated. The detaining authority should have considered such matter. Even assuming that the detaining authority could not consider such matter before the order of approval by the Government it was the duty of the detaining authority to place such matters before the State Government so that before the approval or at any rate, before the confirmation of the order, the State Government would have had the liberty of going through such pre-detention representation. This would also have the effect of vitiating the order of detention as has been held in several decisions of this Court.

    15. Apart from the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner also contended there are several contradictions appearing in the recitals of the grounds of detention and there was no necessity for passing order of detention. However, since we are quashing the order of detention it is not necessary to deal with such contentions.

    16. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. Impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case. sal

    To

    1.The Secretary

    Public (Law & Order-G)Department

    Secretariat

    Chennai 600 009

    2.The Commissioner of Police

    Greater Chennai

    Egmore

  3. vedaprakash Says:

    Casteist arrogance back in Jayalalitha’s constituency
    04, November 2012
    http://www.therisingsun.in/asp/latestnews_01.asp

    About sixty years after Thanthai Periyar led an agitation for the erasing of a casteist phrase from the name board of a hotel at Triplicane in Chennai, similar upper casteist arrogance reared its ugly head in the temple town of Srirangam in Tiruchi as members of some political groups agitated to remove the name board of a vegetarian restaurant, which included the word ‘Brahmin’. That it happened right in front of the famous Srirangam Rajagopuram in Chief Minister Jayalalitha’s constituency added to the tension. The restaurant is now being run with police protection.As many as 164 people had been taken into custody. Police could not decide as late as 9pm whether or not to remand them.A few hundred members of the Thanthai Periyar Dravida Kazhagam, Periyar Paasarai and Periyar Thathuva Maiyyam jointly agitated in front of a small restaurant demanding that it remove its name board that carried the appellation “Bramanal” (Brahmins) in addition to the name of the restaurant. The 10 ft-by-10 ft restaurant, Sri Krishna Iyyer Cafe, on E V S Road, is located right in front of the Rajagopuram. The agitators objected to two Tamil words in the name board translated as “Traditional Brahmin’s Cafe.”

    Thanthai Periyar Dravida Kazhagam district secretary V Saravanan and Seeni Viduthalai Arasu of Periyar Paasarai claimed they had asked the owner of the restaurant, 33-year-old Krishna Iyyer aka Manikandan, four months ago to remove the objectionable term, “Brahmin”. “We have no objection if they declare their names either as ‘Aiyer’ or ‘Iyengar’ but never as ‘Brahmins’,” said Saravanan. Krishna Iyyer had the audacity to say that he would give up the claim to his traditional name if the rationalist outfits were ready to remove the statue of Thanthai Periyar, the icon of Dravidian Movement, from its present location in front of the Rajagopuram. “They have every right to stick to their atheistic beliefs, but the statue hurts the sentiments of Hindus in the state,” he said. The hotel was opened recently and since then the proprietor is reported to have been making vulgar comments about Periyar wantonly trying to provoke the people.Hundreds of members of political parties agitated in front of the restaurant demanding removal of its name board. Possibly the owner of the hotel took cue from Jayalalitha proudly claiming in the State Assembly that she is indeed a Brahmin woman!

  4. ஶ்ரீரங்கத்தில் சுவாமி விவேகானந்தரைப் பற்றிய கிறிஸ்தவர்களின் புளுகு பிரச்சாரம் « இந்தியாவி Says:

    […] https://socialterrorism.wordpress.com/2012/11/08/brahmanal-cafe-forced-shut-down-by-dk/ […]

மறுமொழியொன்றை இடுங்கள்

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / மாற்று )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / மாற்று )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / மாற்று )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / மாற்று )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: