Author: B.R.Haran.
Publication: News Today
Date: August 6, 2008
URL: http://newstodaynet.com/col.php?section=20&catid=29
'What type of people are you? Are you above
the law? You are not above everything. Will you dictate this court also? The
Chief Minister is not above the law. We will issue arrest warrant against
the Chief Minister and seek his personal appearance in the court'.
Thus, the Supreme Court admonished the Tamilnadu
government for not replying to its notice, which was sent on 4 October 2007
over the contempt petition filed by AIADMK. In the aftermath of the UPA filing
an affidavit denouncing Bhagwan Rama and Ramayana in September 2007 and withdrawing
it immediately after the entire nation protested, the DMK- led DPA (Democratic
Progressive Alliance) announced a Statewide bandh, which was observed in total
on 1 October 2007 with the connivance of the government machinery, defying
the 'directive' of the Supreme court to refrain from observing the bandh.
While ensuring the totality of the bandh misusing
the official machinery, the DPA attempted to project it as a 'hunger strike',
as the Supreme Court warned of imposing President's rule.
The Chief Minister, who claimed that he had
not received the 'order' issued by the SC staying the bandh call, hurriedly
ended his fasting in the afternoon itself and attended office just to create
a scenario as if the Secretariat was functioning and bandh was not observed.
Had the Chief Minister taken the SC order in the right spirit, he could have
easily stopped the bandh and ensured the functioning of State peacefully,
as he has a phenomenal influence on his party cadres and government machinery.
But as an exhibition of conceit and mark of
contempt, he allowed the cadres of his party and alliance parties and the
affiliated trade unions to make the bandh a grand success.
Even during the so-called hunger strike, the
Union Shipping Minister T R Baalu went to the extent of questioning the Supreme
Court Judges. He asked, 'Are the judges infallible? Can they dictate terms
to a democratically elected government?'
Almost all the Tamilnadu- based media houses
(both print and electronic) reported, carrying pictorial evidences, that the
bandh was total and even condemned the government for sponsoring the bandh
and for not heeding the Supreme Court's directive. An organisation by name
'Naam' (We) organised a seminar in the city on the topic 'Limits of Judicial
authority', where in, CPI-M leader and MP Brinda Karat, Union Minister A Raja
and Rajya Sabha MP and Chief minister's daughter Kanimozhi participated and
condemned the judiciary in no uncertain terms.
The opposition AIADMK, which was waiting for
a chance to nail the DMK and the Chief Minister, moved the Supreme Court with
a contempt petition against Chief Minister, T R Baalu, State Transport Minister
K N Nehru, State DGP and the Chief Secretary on 4 October, 2007. The SC immediately
admitted the petition and issued notice to all of them seeking explanation.
Since then, these men have been dodging the
SC by seeking adjournments and finally the court granted the last opportunity
and asked them to file their replies by March 30, 2008. Even then the Chief
Secretary and the DGP only filed replies, that too only on 30 July and there
as no reply from Karunanidhi, Baalu and Nehru. As the case came up for hearing
again on Monday, the Supreme Court lost its cool and got agitated at the total
contempt of these men and rapped them.
In this context, it would be appropriate to
take reference from the case between E M S Namboodripad and T N Nambiar (AIR
1970 SC 2015). EMSN was accused of condemning the Judiciary and when T N Nambiar
pulled him to the SC, he himself argued his case and tried to justify his
remarks against the judiciary. EMS's justification was not accepted by the
SC and he was hauled up and even though he deserved a minimum punishment of
6 months rigorous imprisonment, the top court stopped with a reprimand and
also ruled that the court of law can take 'suo motu' cognisance of such statements
in future and that it has the power with executive authority under the Constitution.
The point to note here is that, EMS had a decent & upright image and he
had not used any abusive language against the Judiciary, unlike the present
leaders, whose image & public standing is not so good as EMS.
The Supreme Court had acted as per the Law
of the Land and its judgement was based on the Constitution of our country.
The opinions of the judges were also in accordance with the law of the land.
The Laws of the Land are formulated and promulgated by Parliament, which is
formed by politicians supposedly representing the people. If the politicians
criticise and make disparaging comments on the Judiciary, then it not only
amounts to contempt of court, but also amounts to contempt of Parliament itself,
as they are the makers of those laws considered by the judiciary.
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court's warning,
the Chief Minister has brazenly put the blame on the government's lawyers
and said, 'The two lawyers did not bring to my notice the urgency of the matter
and the need to file the affidavits in time' and he has sacked them too! Here
is an octogenarian politician having a vast experience of more than sixty
years in politics, out of which fifty years in the State assembly, telling
the people that he was not aware of the urgency of the matter. Will any sensible
person believe the claptrap that the lawyers have failed to remind him? Is
he not having a member of his party (K Venkitapathi) holding the post of Minister
of state for Law and a senior Law Minister Duraimurugan in the State Cabinet,
as rightly asked by 'Puthiya Thamizhagam' leader Krishnasamy?
The Chief Minister completed the formality
of reacting to the SC's condemnation by firing yet another salvo, 'This government
has always upheld the supremacy of law'! One need not retrospect the entire
governance of DMK since 1967 to understand how it had upheld the supremacy
of law. The last two years of its governance are enough and the best example
was its reaction on the SC judgment staying the implementation of the OBC
reservations, where in it asked, 'who are the three Aryan (Brahmin or Forward
Caste) Judges to decide the future of millions of OBCs?'
It would be ideal to close this article with
the words of bravado from State Electricity Minister Arcot Veerasamy, who
spoke in front of the Chief Minister, He said,'Judges should not cross their
limits and hold kangaroo courts. Some of them are behaving as if they have
jumped from heaven! They should know their limits. They don't have a legal
sanction to criticise an elected Chief Minister or his government. Do they
have more responsibility than the CM? Who gave them the authority to usurp
the powers of Chief Minister?' So much for the DMK's upholding supremacy of
the law.
