![]() Online edition of India's National Newspaper Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| National |
|
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
Advts: Retail Plus | Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary |
National
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued a notice to the Delhi government on a revision petition by Delhi High Court lawyer Monica Arora seeking a direction for registration of a case against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi for allegedly making disrespectful remarks against Lord Ram last year following the controversy over Sethusamudram project and thus hurting her religious sentiments. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul asked the government to file a reply by February 29, the next date of hearing. The High Court in November last year called for the records from a trial court here relating to dismissal of a complaint by Ms. Arora against the Chief Minister. The trial court dismissed the complaint saying that the complainant had not obtained prior sanction of the competent authority for prosecuting the Chief Minister under Sections 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth… and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony) and 295A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs) of the IPC as provided in the Cr.PC. Two other grounds on which the lower court had dismissed the complaint were that the offences allegedly attributed to the Chief Minister were not committed in the hearing distance and in the sight of the complainant and that there was no clear intention on the part of him (Mr. Karunanidhi) to hurt her religious sentiments. In her revision petition, Ms. Arora submitted that there was no need for prior sanction for prosecuting the Chief Minister as he had not committed the offences against the State but an individual and a religious community for which the Cr.PC did not provide sanction. As regards the other two grounds, Ms. Arora submitted that the respondent (Mr. Karunanidhi) had committed the offences in her hearing distance and in her sight as she saw and heard him make the remarks on television.
Printer friendly
page
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Home |
Copyright © 2008, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|