QUESTION ONPOLICE ENTRY INT

Who ordered police entry into Madras HC? asks SC 26 Feb 2009, 0410 hrs IST, Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN Print Email Discuss Share Save Comment Text: NEW DELHI: The beleaguered Karunanidhi government will, on Thursday, have to answer a volley of questions posed by an angry Supreme Court on Wednesday, the prominent one being — "who was the delinquent officer who ordered entry of police into the Madras High Court premises and use of force against agitating lawyers". The SC took full control of the probe into the various aspects of the violent clash between lawyers and police and said it would reconstitute the three committees set up by the HC. The inquiries by the three committees would all be headed by retired judges, modalities of which would be worked out on Thursday. It also assured the TN lawyers present in good numbers inside the Chief Justice's courtroom that errant police officers would be brought to book, the state would pay for repairs to the HC building and lawyers' vehicles and compensation to the advocates injured in the police action. If on one hand it took a dim view of police high-handedness, it did not make any secret of its displeasure over the manner in which lawyers had gone on with their strike, paralysing the justice delivery system in the state. But the balanced approach, aimed at restoring normalcy in the strike-scarred judiciary, did not yield the desired result. The advocates remained adamant not to resume work till an acceptable solution was worked out. "This is not Pakistan," one of them said, indicating that they would not be cowed down by police brutalities. A clearer picture would emerge only after the SC passes interim orders on the matter on Thursday after the TN government responds to its query on identity of the official who ordered police entry into the HC premises and the use of force against agitating lawyers. A Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices P Sathasivam and J M Panchal did not spare the lawyers for their conduct in stalling the functioning of courts during the course of their agitation. "The striking lawyers have no business to go into courtrooms and prevent others from presenting their case. Maybe a few lawyers in the HC are responsible for it. We know that 95% of the lawyers do not like it and only 5% shout slogans in the corridors. They have no business to do it," the CJI said. "Even if it is assumed that lawyers have a right to strike, they have no right to disrupt court proceedings. If they so want, they can designate a place, assemble there and shout slogans but not inside the courts," Justice Balakrishnan said. Despite this expression of angst against the lawyers' conduct, the proceedings in the packed courtroom was dominated by the CJI's unequivocal condemnation of the unfortunate incident inside the HC premises. "We will take appropriate action against the guilty police officer," the CJI repeatedly said. "We will ascertain from the government who is responsible for this mess. If it is not possible for the government to tell us at whose instance the police entered the HC premises and used force against the lawyers, then we will find it out. We do not want any cooperation from the police. We know how to handle such situations," the CJI said, driving home the message to the Karunanidhi government that it would brook no hedging on the issue. The Bench, which said it would reconstitute the HC appointed committees tasked to probe the incidents of February 19, was also upset that a police station functioned from the HC premises. After rejecting the plea for CBI probe and agreeing for an inquiry by a retired judge, the Bench asked the TN government to immediately shift the police station out of the HC. Appearing for the state, solicitor general G E Vahanvati wanted to present the sequence of events that led to the ugly clash between police and lawyers but immediately agreed to shift out the police station with a tongue-in-cheek remark — "The police station is charred beyond repair. We only have to put a lock on it." SC said it would not allow any police personnel, other than those required to guard the HC and bring the accused to court, to remain in the HC premises. Taking a cue from this, senior advocate Mukul Rohtagi, on behalf of AIADMK leader D Jayakumar, suggested that the police should be withdrawn altogether from the HC and their task should be entrusted to a central force like CISF. But this apparently friendly suggestion was hooted down by TN lawyers present in the courtroom. "We do not want any political interference in the issue. We will handle it ourselves, especially since the matter is before the apex court," they said in unison leading the court to ignore Jayakumar's suggestion. However, appearing for the lone advocate who wanted the lawyers to remain within limits and allow the wheels of justice to roll, senior advocate Harish Salve said any strike call by a Bar association was against apex court orders. Hence, there was an urgent need to lay down guidelines to prevent such incidents in future, he said. The SC also sought the TN government's response on this petition.

"Loved reading this piece by A. A. JOSE?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Join our Telegram group

Join our Whatsapp group