‘Fix rules soon to recruit forensic staff’

The first bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M Sundar, on taking strong exception to the long delay in this regard, said “certainly there cannot be an indeterminate time period, especially as the matter pertains to qualification and terms and conditions of scientific personnel who are involved with investigation of crime.” 

The bench also noted that “It is trite to say that there has been progress by leaps and bounds world over as to how crime is to be investigated through scientific methods, but somehow we have not followed the matter in earnest and this reflects the same.” The petitioner M Velmurugan, an advocate and member of Tamil Nadu Bar Council, had submitted that the need for charting out educational qualifications for appointment in the posts dealing with cybercrimes had risen after the formation of a separate computer forensic unit in November, 2007.  

But till date, still no rules are framed, he contended and informed the bench that the special rules including aspects of educational qualifications are being examined since January 29, 2015, but no time limit has been offered as to when they will be brought in force. Incidentally, even as the Additional Government Pleader sought for three months’ time, the bench granted four months’ after making it clear that the Secretary, Police XVIII department and the Director, Forensic Science Department, shall remain bound by the time limit and hoped that they would not give cause to the petitioner to file any contempt proceedings.

The battle of wits over the proposed move to enable former Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa’s aide V K Sasikala become AIADMK’S general secretary hots up at the High Court.

AIADMK Presidium Chairman E Madhusudanan on Wednesday moved an application to reject the plea of expelled Rajya Sabha MP Sasikala Pushpa and her husband seeking to restrain the AIADMK from appointing Sasikala as general secretary. Justice K Kalyanasundaram, before whom the plea came up, adjourned the case to Friday after directing Sasikala Pushpa and her husband to file their counters. 

However, the judge refused to grant status quo on the issue despite Sasikala Pushpa’s counsel K M Vijayan seeking for the same. Madhusudanan, on claiming that Sasikala Pushpa’s suit has been filed with an oblique motive out of political vendetta without any valid cause of action, said Sasikala does not suffer from any disqualification as imaginarily alleged since her alleged removal on December 19, 2011, was duly cancelled by the then General Secretary as per the provisions contained in by-laws on March 31, 2012. Hence, there was no break in continuity of her membership since the alleged removal is effaced and non-est, he said. He also submitted that Sasikala Pushpa was expelled from the primary membership of AIADMK on August 1, 2016, and hence has no locus standi to file the suit. 

Madhusudanan also noted that even Sasikala Pushpa’s husband is a primary member of the party, the suit has been solely instituted based on news items published in electronic and print media that Sasikala to become the general secretary of AIADMK is trying to amend the by-laws. Sasikala Pushpa and her husband had moved the plea on December 16 seeking the court to restrain Sasikala from being made the general secretary as she has completed only four and a half years as a primary member, while the AIADMK by-laws had an eligibility norm of five continuous years as primary member to be eligible.

Rajiv Gandhi assassination case convict Nalini Sriharan has appealed against an order of a single judge of the High Court, which declined to entertain her plea seeking premature release from prison, citing the pendency of a related matter before the Supreme Court. Nalini in her plea has submitted that the single judge had erred in failing to appreciate her representation on February 22, 2014, to the Tamil Nadu government for her premature release from prison under Article 161 of the Constitution in accordance with a Scheme of Premature Release of Life Convicts dated November 10, 1994, while the writ petition pending before the Supreme Court is not covered by the said scheme framed by the Tamil Nadu government. She also noted that her plea for release was based on the existing scheme of Premature Release of Life Convicts and many convicts were and are being released from prison as per the said scheme.