The Hindu : National : Judiciary intimidated: police

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Feb 24, 2005

National

National

Judiciary intimidated: police

By Our Tamil Nadu Bureau

KANCHEEPURAM, FEB. 23. Investigators in the Kanchi Sankararaman murder case and advocates seem to be at loggerheads with the district police today posing whether it is correct on the part of advocates to "intimidate the judiciary and judges."

In a press release here, the police said that it was for the public to decide whether the court boycott launched with a view to "saving the accused in a particular case somehow, and with the bad intention of tarnishing the investigation" should be accepted.

The police said that in the Sankararaman murder case, some advocates had even tried to get hold of "secret documents" submitted to the court. Following receipt of the information, a bureau was given to the court at the Government's expense for the safe custody of the documents. But the advocates had submitted a complaint to the Principal District Judge that G. Uthamaraj, Judicial Magistrate-I, Kancheepuram (in whose court the case is pending) was using the bureau given by the police and that action should be taken against him. Was the complaint filed after getting the Bar Council's approval? Is the act of intimidating judges and judiciary correct, the police asked.

When the Kanchi Sankaracharya, Sri Jayendra Saraswathi, and his junior, Sri Vijayendra Saraswathi, were being produced before the court and when the junior was being arrested in the Kanchi Mutt, an advocate entered into an argument with the police officials and this had been videographed. She and another legal aid cell advocate had no purpose in visiting the sub-jail in Kancheepuram (where approver Ravi Subramaniam had been lodged). The legal aid advocate should visit the jail only on Thursdays. But both the lawyers had visited the jail twice on other days, and had "intimidated" the approver. This was done at the "instigation of the accused" when the Special Investigation Team was camping at Tirunelveli in the first week of this month.

When the approver presented a petition to the court on February 10, the advocates' association before launching its court boycott could have approached either the court or the higher police officials and ascertained what had actually happened. Instead, the Bar Association condemned the police "which was in no way involved," and also unilaterally launched the court boycott programme.

After the approver's wife, Chitra, presented a petition to the Siva Kanchi police station seeking protection to the life of her husband, the law took its course. Whenever a criminal complaint was received, the police were empowered under the Constitution to register a case, inquire and give protection to an individual's life and property.

"What is wrong in the police initiating action against advocates involved in criminal activities, the police asked.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National