The Hindu : Tamil Nadu / Madurai News : Inclusion of `video pirates' under Goondas Act valid: Madurai Bench

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Apr 30, 2005

Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu - Madurai

Inclusion of `video pirates' under Goondas Act valid: Madurai Bench

Mohamed Imranullah S.

Amendment relates to preventive detention, rule judges

MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Friday held as valid the inclusion of "video pirates" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, popularly known as the Goondas Act, by way of an amendment last year.

Dismissing a habeas corpus petition moved by the father of a person from Tiruchi, branded as a "video pirate" and detained under the Act, a Division Bench, comprising Justice P.K. Misra and Justice A.R. Ramalingam, said the amendment in pith and substance related to preventive detention; and hence it was valid.

The contention of the petitioner was that the State legislature was not competent to enact a law concerning copyright, since it was a Central subject. Pointing out that the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution distinguished between the subject matter of laws that could be enacted by Parliament and State legislatures by drawing reference to three different lists — the Union list, the State list and the Concurrent list, the petitioner said copyright fell under entry 49 of the Union list; and hence, only Parliament could enact a law on the subject.

A `video pirate' was defined under the Act as "a person who commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences of infringement of copyright in relation to a cinematograph film or a record embodying any part of sound track associated with the film, punishable under the Copyright Act, 1957 (Central Act)."

Rejecting the petitioner's contentions, the Bench observed, "the amended provision does not purport to be a legislation relating to any matter coming within the scope of entry 49 of the Union list or any matter already covered under the Copyright Act. The enactment purports to be a provision relating to preventive detention."

Not a punitive measure

An order of preventive detention was not a punitive measure but only aimed at preventing a person from committing a crime likely to prejudicially affect security of a State or maintenance of public order or of supplies and services essential to community, the Bench said. "It is of no consequence that while enacting such law, the offence in respect of which such preventive detention law is required to be made is an offence under a central Act enacted as per Union list or Concurrent list or a State Act enacted under the State list or Concurrent list."

On the other contention of the petitioner that there was nothing on record to indicate the satisfaction of the detaining authority to prevent the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order, the Bench said a bare perusal of the order clearly recorded his satisfaction. "Such satisfaction is subjective, which is not open to be judicially reviewed on the basis of any objective assessment by the court of law."

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

Tamil Nadu

News Update

Stories in this Section

Constructive idea biding its time to materialise

Inclusion of `video pirates' under Goondas Act valid: Madurai Bench

Where is all the rainwater going?

BSNL to cover areas left out of WLL service by March next

Indian Airlines reschedules flights

Around the City

In Madurai Today