what a joke 2009/3/8 sarathi <vpslawf...@gmail.com>
> > WHY LAWYERS REJECT SRI KRISHNA COMMISSION AS BIASED? > > 1. The scope of the Commission was only to inquire into the incidents > on 19.02.2009. But the Commission had, without locus standi, gone > beyond the events that happened before that date. > > 2. Most of the observations of the Commission against lawyers had not > been supported by any piece of evidence. > > 3. In page of 5 of the report, the Commission acknowledges > registration of 110 Criminal cases against lawyers and also states > about arrest of lawyers. No violent incident was reported during > those events. The Commission did not take note of this fact. > > 4. Even after noting the arrest of advocate Gini Leo Immanuel in the > Subramaniam Swamy assault case and the surrender of 14 advocates in > the High Court Police Station, the Commission states in page 10 that > some lawyers threw stones of the police. The entire version of the > police about the incident had been re-produced verbatim without caring > to verify the allegations. > > 5. Is the former Supreme Court Judge is foolish enough to believe the > timer in the police video to give a clean chit to the Commissioner of > Police and other officers who had admitted that they ordered lathi > charge and they were present during the incident? > > > 6. The Commission had completely suppressed the fact borne out by > photographs and video that police had dressed-up in lawyer’s uniform > and stage-managed the stone-throwing incident. > > 7. What proof did the commission rely on to state in page 15 that the > violence was started by the unruly mob of lawyers. > > 8. The judge could not decipher that the whole incident was pre- > meditated, cold-blooded act of the police force, from the fact that > the DGP and the Commissioner of Police could not be contacted over > phone by the Chief Justice and other judges for a long time during the > incident. The commission is foolish or dishonest? > > 9. When the Commission speaks eloquently about the “soft-pedaling” by > the Chief Justice against erring lawyers, there is no whisper about > action against the inhuman policemen. > > 10. Special care has been taken by the Commission to protect the > Commissioner of Police Radhakrishnan and other officers. > > 11. The Commission merely condemns in page 19 the barbaric bleeding > assault by the police without suggesting any legal actions against > them. But on the contrary, in page 21 it had exceeded its limits by > suggesting more guidelines for the behaviour of lawyers, thus exposing > its pro-police, anti-lawyers attitude. > > 12. A reading of entire report by any commoner with common sense will > give an impression that the Commission is unduly concerned with the > agitations by the lawyers demanding ceasefire in Sri Lanka. Is the > Commission anti-tamil? > > 13. The Commission did not bother to answer the following questions:- > > > A REPRESENTATION BY SENIOR ADVOCATES OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT > REGARDING THE VIOLENCE UNLEASHED BY THE POLICE ON 19.02.2009 > > To > The Chief Justice of India > Supreme Court, > New Delhi. > > A representation by Senior Advocates of the Madras High Court. > ‘JALIANWALA BAGH’ IN MADRAS HIGH COURT > > The ugly incidents that took place on the afternoon of the 19th day of > February, 2009 within the precincts of the Chartered High Court of > Madras have left scores bleeding and thousands embittered. There seems > to be an attempt to project advocates as the chief cause and > perpetrators of the violence that was unleashed inside the premises. > In this context, it is felt that a few important issues have been > overlooked in the dust and din that has been raised: > > 1. A large posse of regular policemen, Swift Action Group, Riot > Control Police had been gathered around the High Court premises since > morning – did the police suspect anything, was anything being > planned? > > 2. The police are on record saying that they were prepared – see News > Report by A.Selvaraj in the Times of India, Chennai Edition, 21- > Fen-09, at page 2. > > 3. It is alleged that a group of advocates created a commotion/uproar/ > disturbance over the police’s laxity in filing an FIR against Shri > Subramaniam Swamy and that the police ‘action’ which ensued was the > result of trying to control this group of advocates. > > 4. If the police had such a large force piled up, could not this group > of advocates have been contained without much difficulty – or are the > police so inefficient that it is incapable of even this clinical > operation? > > 5. Was it necessary to run amok inside the High Court to control a > group of advocates, as alleged? > > 6. How then did the police let themselves inside the High Court > premises on the afternoon of February 19th, after the boycott had > ended? This action is indeed surprising viewed in the context of the > extreme ‘restraint’ the police had shown itself to be capable of, a > couple of months ago at the Madras Law College. > > 7. Worse, the police have charged inside various High Court sections > (Registry) – For one, the police have tried force their way into, > among others, the High-Court-Judges’-Personal Assistants (P.A) – > Section – this Section apparently has had a new door put up at the > entrance. Terrified court staff have locked the door from inside and > have had their backs to the door trying to resist the police men > banging at the door from gaining entry – eye-witnesses recount how the > door would open into the section about a feet, and how the staff from > inside would push it back in place, only for the door to be banged at > again by the police. The door would again have to be pushed back in > place – what did the P.A.’s do to merit this? > > 8. The High Court library was not spared either – library staff was > attacked. > > 9. Why was it that the police though it fit to barge into sections > lathi charging and terrorizing the poor court staff? Even assuming the > police have a right to charge at all advocates for the commotion > created by a few, surely the Court staff are distinguishable from the > advocates by their dress? > > 10. Worried advocates have had to petition the Registrar General to > bring the situation into control. > > 11. Others, distressed advocates, had also gone to the Acting Chief > Justice’s chambers requesting that the police be directed to leave the > High Court premises – the ACJ had been in conference with a few > judges. Top brass of the police were contacted, none could be > reached! > > 12. The Acting Chief Justice and a few other judges had then set out > to control the scene and to take stock of the situation so as to > ensure no further harm to men and property. The Judges were then taken > to one of the sections viz. Current Section to avoid any untoward > incident. However this precaution failed as one of the Hon’ble Judges > was injured. > > 13. A charge is made that the B4 Police Station inside the High Court > premises was set ablaze by the advocates. Footage shown on T.V. shows > the police station, without any damage to it, surrounded by a couple > of hundred policemen including the Swift Action Group/Riot Control > Police – how then did advocates get access to the police station. Who > burned the Police Station down? > > 14. Police have charged indiscriminately at all advocates – photos > abound of police beating up innocent advocates huddled into a corner, > of thrashing people who were pleading with hands folded… > > 15. There is ample footage of advocates’ cars and motor bikes being > smashed by the policemen. Why? If there was such an emergent need for > the police to charge to contain the ‘attacking advocates’ why was it > deemed fit to stop mid way, turn their fury at the vehicles and > proceed? > > 16. And, what of police men throwing stones on people at Court > corridors? > > 17. The police started beating up women advocates and using abusive > language without any provocation. This treatment was also meted out to > innocent litigants who were unfortunate enough to be in the campus on > the ill-fated day. Surely a case of “protectors” turning > “aggressors”. > > 18. If a large group of advocates gathered and retaliated by throwing > stones, can they be accused of throwing stones without grave and > sudden provocation? > > 19. If a group of advocates were the first to resort to throwing > stones, why were tear gas shells/water cannons not used to contain > them? In any case, what was the need to attack, get inside the offices > of the Registry and beat up Court staff? > > 20. The police have also gone inside the chambers of the Acting Chief > Justice and terrorized the Acting Chief Justice’s staff. > > 21. Mr.Justice A.C.Arumuga Perumal Adityan was wounded in the police > ‘action’ with a lathi and had to be protected by a group of advocates > who got badly injured and had to be rushed to the hospital along with > the Hon’ble Judge. > > 22. At least two exits from the High Court have been locked preventing > advocates, court staff and others from going outside – is a reference > to Jalianwala Bagh inappropriate? > > > 23. Not satisfied with all the above, the police have chased advocates > even outside the High Court premises, in and around NSC Bose Road. > > A very sad day for the Indian judiciary; a judiciary required to be > independent of executive interference. While there may be two opinions > on whether the preceding boycott was justified or not, the brutal > attack on the institution had nothing to do with this. It is a fact > that the Madras High Court was ransacked and vandalized by the police > who could not be controlled by even the Chennai City Police > Commissioner. > > In the light of all the above, it is submitted that advocates have a > genuine cause for anguish over this terror that has been let loose by > the police. The extent of damage caused to the person and property of > the officers of the Court stand testimony to the fact that the police > ‘action’ was much more than disproportionate to the disturbances > alleged to have been caused by a group of advocates. > > Thirty five senior Advocates, including R.Krishnamurthy, Habibullah > Badsha, both former Advocate Generals of the High Court, Madras, > Mr.T.R.Rajagopolan, former Additional Advocate General, Mr.N.Natarajan > and Mr.R.Gandhi, Senior Advocates met on 20.02.2009 and discussed the > serious situation in the High Court and passed the following > resolutions: > > We the senior members of the Madras Bar place on record our strongest > disapproval of the atrocities committed by the Police, Swift Action > Group and Commandos inside the Madras High Court premises on the 19th > February 2009, brutally and indiscriminately attacking innocent > lawyers, Court staff and general public and damaging public property > as well as vehicles parked inside the campus. > > We condemn the atrocious act of the Police in even attacking the > constitutional authorities – the Hon’ble Judges of the Madras High > Court, as well as the Subordinate Judiciary, this interfering with the > administration of judicial system. > > We demand the prompt and severe action to be taken against the Police > officers, who issued directions to the Police to take aggressive > action against the lawyers and the Police who unleashed a reign of > terror within the High Court campus. > > Be all these as they may, two urgent issues need to be addressed – > first, finding out what was the agenda behind this indiscriminate > action and secondly, and more importantly, saving the all important > institution of the High Court from the clutches of the police. > > > > -- Bobby Kunhu http://community.eldis.org/myshkin/Blog/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to greenyouth@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to greenyouth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
