CoP spared from personal appearance

The first bench of acting Chief Justice Huluvadi G Ramesh and Justice R M T Teekaraman stepped in based on a memo moved on behalf of the Commissioner and dispensed with his personal appearance on Wednesday before a single judge. The bench besides dispensing with his appearance in the contempt case, also transferred the case to itself. 

The memo challenged the order passed by Justice N Kirubakaran last week, saying the judge’s order was communicated to the Commissioner and he in turn had instructed the additional commissioner of police to take care of the issue. Accordingly, the additional commissioner of police had instructed his subordinate officials to implement the order. 

Senior Counsel S Prabakaran appearing on behalf of George submitted that based on the order issued to subordinate officials, “It is learnt that the police have been visiting the petitioner (whistle-blower) six times a day and obtaining signatures from him. 

Hence, we do not know in what way he had violated the court orders.” He also argued that the Commissioner of Police was not at all a party to the petition before the single judge and hence the contempt proceedings would not lie against him. 

Moreover, when the case had been referred to the first bench for further proceedings, how could the single judge initiate contempt against the officer, Prabakaran argued. Case relates to a petition filed by Injambakkam resident Pon Thangavelu who said a local councillor, Annamalai, in a blatant abuse of his position was paying a tax of a meagre Rs 55 to Rs 110 as annual property tax for each of his more than five bungalows. 

The councillor was also found to have declared his properties as ‘nil’ though he possessed assets worth several crores of rupees, which has been endorsed by the Income Tax department. 

Moreover, with the scope of the petition being expanded to all councillors who had held the post during the past 10 years by directing them to submit their asset details to court, the issue had obtained political hues resulting in court ordering police security to the whistle-blower.

The deployment of Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) to safeguard the Madras High Court from external and internal disturbances seems to have got into shaky grounds with the higher judiciary openly expressing as to whether such a facility was required as it was a ‘public court’ and not a ‘military court’.

When submissions were made about the screening centres with metal detectors nearing completion, the first bench comprising acting Chief Justice Huluvadi G Ramesh and Justice R M T Teekaraman questioned the need for the force and wondered as to why the Tamil Nadu Government ought to pay Rs 32 crore per year. 

“I am in this court for about a year now, and there are no terrorist activities warranting CISF,” said Justice Ramesh, adding that court premises is meant for the general public and it should not be like court martial. If the Centre is keen to provide high security to the court, why should the state government pay. Also, if any law and order problem arises, it is for the local police to manage. 

Everywhere in India, only the respective state police are managing courts,” the bench said. When assistant solicitor-general of India Su Srinivasan pointed out that Delhi High Court was under CISF security, the bench said, “Maybe it is required there because Delhi is nearer to Pakistan.” 

Former President of Madras High Court Advocates Association (MHAA), R C Paul Kanagaraj, argued for revocation of suspension of nine advocates who had questioned the need to videograph the frisking of a woman advocate by CISF personnel. He said the state had paid Rs 66 crore last year for salary of CISF alone and added that accommodation and infrastructure were additional expenses. He also stated that, there was no need to remove the infrastructure, but it could be occupied by state police personnel. 

However, Advocate Elephant G Rajendran, said the state government should not adopt a double standard in the matter and added that the Chief Secretary of TN himself wrote to the Centre saying it was unable to manage lawyers while the state at one stage had challenged he deployment of CISF.

The Centre has informed the MHC that it has not received any representation to safe keep the details pertaining to the death of late Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa.

The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Prime Minister’s Office, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, Home Ministry, and Ministry of Law and Justice, before a division bench comprising Chief Justice Huluvadi G Ramesh and Justice R Mahadevan, said state governments are primarily responsible for prevention, detection, registration and investigation of crime and for prosecuting the criminals through their law enforcement agencies and as such state government is responsible for enabling necessary medical care to the Chief Minister. The counter made it clear that the state is empowered to appoint retired SC judges under the commission of inquiry act if required. However, while answering the petitioner’s allegation that a representation was sent to Union Home Ministry to keep the corpus of the late Chief Minister safely after getting inputs from the experts till the commissioner concludes the inquiry the counter said that it had not received any such representation.