Moot memorial
Aaqib Ansari
(Querist) 28 October 2022
This query is : Resolved
Attaching the problem as below: In the village of Mylapore in Tamil Nadu there is an eminent businessman turned politician Rahul Raghuvanshi. He has been elected to Tamil Nadu assembly successfully 3 consecutive times. Rahul a management graduate from Annamalai University was an active student in Youth Politics. He was The President of Janata Morcha Youth wing and thereafter he joined Janata Morcha, he held several posts within the party and at a young age of 31 became MLA. Rahul is a 2nd generation politician and son of renowned industrialist Bhargav Raghuvanshi, Shri Raghav Raghuvanshi has been a 2 times MLA and 3 times MP from Mylapore constituency, he also held the portfolio of Minister for Urban Development when Janata Morcha was in power in 1987.Rahul Raghuvanshi being an Industrialist owned several factories which had huge manpower and Trade unions with political affiliation. Rahul after procuring a degree in management from Annamalai University chose to pursue his family business, in the course of his business he had to grapple with many problems relating to workforce such as absenteeism, low productivity, and acrimonious disputes as the trade unions had differences within themselves. A strike broke out in Mr. Raghuvanshi’s factory on account of denial of bonus and incentives. There was labour unrest, sloganeering and chaos. The Trade Union Leader Babu Shankar was affiliated to Samaj Saghatan the party which was in the opposition and arch rival of Janata Morcha the Party in power. Rahul Raghuvanshi was in a fix and catch 22 situation as the labourers besieged the bunglow of Rahul Raghuvanshi at the behest of Babu Shankar on account of political rivalry there was wide media coverage of the issue. On the 2nd February, 2012 situation was extremely turbulent hence the local police imposed Section 144 of Cr.PC and also detained a few labourers U/S 151 of Cr.PC. The detention of many labourers exceeded the prescribed time ordained by Cr.PC. As Rahul Raghuvanshi used his clout and influence to suppress the agitation, the family member of a worker filed a Habeas Corpus petition on 6th February, 2012 Under Article 226 and 227 of Chennai High Court challenging the detention of several workers and also claimed compensation. The Chennai Bench consisting of Chief justice allowed the petition and gave relief to the prayers of the petitioners and also awarded compensation. The Trade Union leader Babu Shankar urged the leader of opposition in Tamil Nadu assembly to broach a debate on Rahul Raghuvanshi’s undue influence and causing loss to poor labourers. This led to furor in the Assembly demanding resignation of Rahul Raghuvanshi was the post of standing committee for Education and Environment. Rahul Raghuvanshi did not relent. This lead to social unrest and there were protest marches across the city, agitation which led to Gheraos and Bandhs. The Home minister tried to control the situation with Rapid Action Force and Local constabulary. In the course of this chaos Rahul Raghuvanshi made a public speech at Tradulai Swamy stadium on 14th May 2012 in the course of his speech he called the agitators of Samaj Sanghtans as ‘wild creatures’ and urged the Janata Morcha workers to give a ‘fitting reply’ to the protesters. This caused a furor and there was law and order problem which resulted in casualties and damage to property. Rahul Raghuvanshi was held responsible for whatever transpired and he was compelled to resign from the committees he was part of and the portfolio he held. There was round the clock coverage of the incidents of violence by the media. The opposition demanded an inquiry of the incidents and insisted on setting up a commission. A Commission was constituted in August, 2012 by the Ruling Party i.e Janata Morcha under the auspices of retired judge, Justice Vishwanath to enquire and investigate into this matter. The commission submitted its report before the House on 17th August, 2013 of the incidents of February, 2012.There was elections hence the commission report was debated fiercely then kept in abeyance. Samaj Sanghatan captured Power and Muthuswamy Nair became the Chief Minister in 21 December 2013 and the commission report was again debated with disruptions in the House. The speech delivered by Rahul Raghuvanshi was regarded as a hate speech causing enmity between two communities hence he was booked under sec 153 A of IPC for which Punishment in 3 years, after a lot of pandemonium the Commission report was implemented on 31st December, 2013. The home minister demanded arrest of Rahul Raghuvanshi and Rahul Raghuvanshi was arrested and produced before magistrate on 11th January 2014. The magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and convicted Rahul Raghu Vanshi for 3 years imprisonment. The order was challenged in court of sessions/district court, in May, 2015 the order was upheld and eventually it was challenged in Chennai High Court. The High Court admitted the appeal and overruled conviction on 16th November, 2015 of Rahul Raghuvanshi and found that lower courts made gross error in passing such orders. State challenged the High Court order of acquittal in the Supreme Court of India. Issues 1) Is he said appeal maintainable in the Supreme Court? 2) Is the High court justified in setting aside the session court’s order? 3) Does the case have anything pertaining to limitation act or has time barred as per the relevant legal provisions? 4) Is sanction required for prosecution of Rahul Raghuvanshi as he is member of state assembly? 5) Is the government bound by the findings of Justice Viswanathan commission as regards its implementation or not?
