Wednesday, Dec 03, 2003
Wednesday, Dec 03, 2003 |
| Southern States | ||||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Southern States
-
Tamil Nadu
By J. Venkatesan
Mr. Vaiko and eight others were arrested in July last and Mr. Gopal in April this year. A team of officials and lawyers, led by the senior advocate, C.S. Vaidyanathan, today presented the preliminary objections to Justice Saharya. The panel had issued a show-cause notice to the Government to explain whether it was fit and proper to invoke the POTA against these 10 persons. Justice Saharya told The Hindu that the fifth meeting of the committee tomorrow would take up for discussion the two petitions. "We have asked counsel for the Government as well as for the complainants, Mr. Vaiko and Mr. Gopal, to be present here as a standby so that we can ask them to address arguments, if necessary, on the objections". In Mr. Vaiko's case, the petition said the panel, constituted under Section 60 of the POTA, was to perform only executive functions and as such it was not competent to traverse upon matters pending before judicial forums. "This is especially so when the nature of powers and jurisdiction, which could be exercised by the Review Committee, are not spelt out either expressly or impliedly in the POTA". The direction, as contained in the notice on the basis of which the committee might pass orders, would amount to interference with the due course of justice, inasmuch as not only a criminal trial but also various incidental matters relating thereto were pending in the High Court and in the apex court awaiting a verdict. 
Referring to counter affidavits filed by the Centre in the apex court in Mr. Vaiko's case, the Government said that while the first affidavit stated the words flowing from the petitioner constituted an act of terrorism, the second affidavit said, "The speech delivered by Mr. Vaiko, if properly interpreted and read in the entire context of the speech and the surrounding circumstances, does not attract the provisions of Section 21 of the Act." `Affidavit only a point of view' It noted that the counter affidavit could be taken only as a point of view expressed more for political reasons than as a ruling. "The ambit and scope of Section 21 does not depend on the affidavits filed on behalf of the Centre or any other party." Therefore, the petition wanted the panel to take the preliminary objections as a preliminary issue before going into the merits of the case to avoid any conflict of decisions by the competent judicial forums. As for Mr. Gopal's case, the petition said he challenged the validity of Section 4 and the apex court verdict was awaited. Further, while dealing with the bail issue, the apex court observed that a prima facie view had to be formed by the court to satisfy itself that there were grounds for believing that the accused was not guilty of committing the offence he was charged with. Therefore, the committee would have no jurisdiction to go into the question whether it was a fit case for proceeding against Mr. Gopal under the POTA, the petition said.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |
Copyright © 2003, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
