Police-lawyers clash: notice ordered on petitions

 The Madras High Court on Monday ordered notice returnable by August 27 on petitions relating to the clash between the police and lawyers on the court premises on February 19. The incidents had left several persons injured. Following the clash, a three-member Bench, comprising Justices S.J. Mukhopadhaya, V. Dhanapalan and K. Chandru, was constituted. In its order, the Bench suggested the suspension of the then Additional Commissioner of Police, A.K. Viswanathan, and the Joint Commissioner of Police, North Zone, M. Ramasubramani. Aggrieved, the two filed a Special Leave Petition.

In its order of July 14, the apex court, while disposing of the petition, said that it had been pointed out that the officers were not responsible for any illegality on their part and were not heard before the order was passed by the High Court. It felt that they should be given an opportunity of being heard before the High Court. The officers should be at liberty to approach the High Court and submit their arguments. A Bench may deal with the matter and should ensure fair hearing to counsel appearing for the petitioners and other parties to the dispute. The two officers have not moved the High Court yet. Following the Supreme Court’s order, a special Bench of the High Court, comprising Justices S.J. Mukhopadhaya and K. Chandru which was constituted earlier, recused itself from the hearing. Later, a Bench, comprising Justices F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla and R. Banumathi, was constituted.

After hearing counsel appearing for various writ petitioners, the Advocate-General and the Government Pleader, the Bench said since many respondents had been arrayed as parties in all the writ petitions, it was directing the Registry to send a common notice . An advocate said that he had been instructed to appear for the then Additional Commissioner of Police. The Bench said the Registry should send notice to Mr. Ramasubramani, at present, DIG, Tiruchi range, in his individual capacity. Meanwhile, social activist K.R. Ramasamy, in his petition, stated that since tension prevailed in the High Court buildings whenever the matter came up, the hearing could be held in another State.