The Hindu : Front Page : Why the delay in filing response, court asks Karunanidhi, others

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Aug 05, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

Front Page

Front Page

Why the delay in filing response, court asks Karunanidhi, others

J. Venkatesan

“Violation of court order against enforcing a bandh last year”

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday directed Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi, Chief Secretary L.K. Tripathy and the then Director General of Police P. Rajendran to file written explanations in four weeks why there was an inordinate delay in filing a response to the contempt notice issued by the court on October 29, 2007.

A Bench of Justice B.N. Agrawal and Justice G.S. Singhvi, hearing a contempt petition filed by the AIADMK, gave four weeks’ time to State Transport Secretary Debendranath Sarangi, Transport Minister K.N. Nehru and Union Minister T.R. Baalu for filing their replies. The Bench said their replies should also furnish reasons for not filing a response so far.

The notice was issued on the petition filed by the AIADMK against five respondents for allegedly violating a court order prohibiting the enforcement of a bandh in the State on October 1, 2007. The court, while dispensing with their personal appearance, had issued contempt notice to Mr. Baalu for his alleged remarks criticising the judiciary. The petitioner alleged that there was wilful disobedience of the Supreme Court’s September 30, 2007 order prohibiting enforcement of the bandh.

When the matter was taken up, counsel for Tamil Nadu V.G. Pragasam submitted that the Chief Secretary and the [then] DGP had filed their replies. Counsel Guru Krishnakumar, appearing for the AIADMK, submitted that the Chief Minister and others, including Mr. Baalu, had not filed their response. He said even the Chief Secretary and the then DGP had filed a reply only on July 30. Counsel for Mr. Baalu, Mr. Sarangi and Mr. Nehru sought time to file replies.

Justice Agrawal orally told counsel: “It is almost a year and by now the matter could have been disposed of. Your Chief Minister and the Union Minister have no time to file replies to the show cause. You are above the law! What type of people are you?”

Referring to Mr. Baalu, Justice Agarawal said: “Because you are in the Central government, do you think that you will do everything but you will not file your reply? You think you can dictate to this court also. If this is their [contemnors’] attitude we will issue warrant of arrest and let them come and appear in the court.”

Mr. Pragasam submitted that the Chief Minister had not filed a separate reply as he was adopting the reply of the Chief Secretary. Justice Agrawal told counsel: “You [CM] should have filed an affidavit to that effect.”

The Bench, in its brief order, said that notice was issued to the respondents on October 29, 2007.

Upon receipt of notice, the matter was listed on December 14, 2007 and six weeks’ time was taken to file replies. When the matter was taken up on March 31, in spite of the fact that three months had expired, further time was sought and four weeks’ time was granted.

The Bench said: “The case is placed before us today after five months. Two contemnors [respondents 1 and 2] have filed their show cause. When four weeks’ time was granted on March 31, we fail to understand why the respondents 1 and 2 have filed their show cause on July 30, after four months.”

The Bench noted that the Chief Secretary and the then DGP did not bother to give any reason for not filing the show cause in four weeks. It directed them to file affidavits in four weeks furnishing reasons for the delay in filing the response. The order also said that the Chief Minister (respondent 4) was adopting the affidavit of the Chief Secretary and he too should explain the delay.

The Bench said as a last chance, further four weeks’ time was granted to the other three respondents (the Transport Secretary, the Transport Minister, and Mr. Baalu) to file their replies, which should also furnish explanations for the delay in filing the responses.

The Bench, while granting a week’s time to the petitioner to file a rejoinder, directed the matter to be listed for further hearing on September 22.

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

Front Page