The Hindu : Front Page : High Court orders notice to State in case against Azhagiri

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, May 17, 2007
ePaper

Front Page

Front Page

High Court orders notice to State in case against Azhagiri

Staff Reporter

Judge tells Additional Advocate-General to file reply or go to Supreme Court

M.K. Azhagiri

MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Wednesday ordered notice of motion (a notice issued before admitting a petition) to the State Government in a public interest litigation petition against M.K. Azhagiri, son of Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi, for allegedly operating as an "extra constitutional authority."

A Division Bench comprising Justices Prafulla Kumar Misra and K. Veeraraghavan adjourned the hearing on the petition, filed by the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), to June 6 to enable the State to file its reply. It refused to order notice to Mr. Azhagiri.

Earlier, the court witnessed heated arguments between AIADMK counsel N. Jothi and Additional Advocates-General P.S. Raman and S. Ramaswamy. Even as petitioner's counsel was putting forth the gist of the case, including the attack on the Sun TV network office here in which three people were killed on May 9, Mr. Raman intervened to state that the case had been filed with a mala fide intention.

Wondering how the petition was placed before a vacation court as there was no urgency in the matter, he said: "I had to learn about the case from The Hindu newspaper." (The court is in recess till June 3). He also took strong exception to paragraph 11 of the affidavit, filed by AIADMK treasurer D. Jayakumar, wherein the latter had said that the Chief Minister was unable to control the emergence of many "dubious power centres" owing to his old age.

"Is this how a political party files an affidavit? Does a representative of a political party, who is also an MLA, make this kind of allegation," Mr. Raman asked and refused to read out the paragraph in the open court hall.

Referring to the prayer in the PIL seeking constitution of a body of highly reputable persons to monitor law and order situation in southern districts, he said it was tantamount to asking the court to establish an extra constitutional authority. The case has been filed as a result of the incidents that took place on May 9 and there was nothing in the affidavit to show that Mr. Azhagiri was operating as a power centre.

To this, Mr. Justice Misra pointed out some paragraphs in which the police officers and other Government officials were accused of taking orders from the Chief Minister's son.

Arguing further, Mr. Raman said the PIL petition could not be entertained because the petitioner had nothing to do with the May 9 attack. Mr. Justice Misra replied: "This is not a private grievance. Supposing somebody is killed in a road accident and if I happen to see it. Is it not my duty to report to the police? There is no question of a person aggrieved for setting the law in motion."

Judge's poser

On the contention that the police did not register a case based on a complaint lodged by an employee of the network because it had already registered a case on a complaint given by a sub-inspector of police, the Judge asked: "Are you suggesting that if somebody comes with another complaint on the same issue, it cannot be registered?"

When the AAG continued to vehemently argue the case, Mr. Justice Misra said: "We will simply say that you will file your reply. If you are still aggrieved, go to the Supreme Court."

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

Front Page