Rajya Sabha member Sasikala Pushpa, who was recently expelled from the AIADMK, appeared before the Madras High Court Bench here on Monday and conceded that she did not come to Madurai on August 17 for authorising her lawyers to appear on behalf of her in an anticipatory bail plea as stated in a vakalat filed in court along with the advance bail petition.
The MP told Justice V.M. Velumani, before the judge reserved orders on the former’s anticipatory bail plea, that she signed
Questions invocation of POCSO provisions
Rajya Sabha member Sasikala Pushpa, who has been summoned along with her husband by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court over allegation that they had made a false statement of having signed the vakalat on their anticipatory bail plea in Madurai in August 17, said she had signed the vakalat in Delhi on August 16 and forwarded it to her Madurai-based lawyers C. Susi Kumar and J. Sathiyaraj through her husband N. Lingeswara Thilagan. Mr. Thilagan, in turn, told the court that he handed over the vakalat to the lawyers here on August 17.
Ms. Pushpa did not dispute the authenticity of her signature in the vakalat which had been countersigned by another Madurai advocate S. Vijayakumar with a statement that it was executed before him after its contents were read over to the MP, her husband and son L. Pradeep Raja, who were the co-applicants, in Tamil and they seemed to have understood them perfectly.
Contesting the claim, senior counsel Veera Kathiravan, appearing for Ms. Pushpa, accused the police of having made a false statement in court and claimed that the MP’s husband had taken a flight to Singapore from Bengaluru only on August 18 after handing over the vakalat in person to the lawyers in Madurai on August 17. He said it was wrong to claim that he left for Singapore on August 16.
He said that Thoothukudi police had registered a case against the MP and her family members under various bail provisions of the Indian Penal Code and non-bailable provisions of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 1998 on August 9 on the basis of a complaint lodged by a 21-year-old former domestic aid accusing the family of having ill-treated and sexually abused her and her sister.
The FIR was altered on August 22 and provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 were included on the grounds that the complainant had claimed to have been abused since 2011 when she was a minor. Taking exception to it, the Senior Counsel said the police were strengthening their case day by day only to ensure that his client was put behind the bars.
Police deny allegation
On the other hand, Additional Advocate-General (AAG) B. Pugalendhi said there was a delay in invoking the POCSO Act only because the police had to ascertain the age of the complainant.
Accusing the MP and her family members of not cooperating with the investigation and flying away to a foreign country, the AAG said the petition should not be entertained for the basic reason that the MP had made a false statement in court.
“Now the petitioner has admitted that she did not sign the vakalat in Madurai. Filing a vakalat is not a formality or a ritual that anybody can sign anywhere and claim that it was signed in Madurai. A fraud has been played on the court by filing such a vakalat. Even the affidavit filed by the MP today is not in proper form. It contains the date but not the place where it was executed,” he said.
She feared attack by AIADMK cadre
Sasikala Pushpa, Rajya Sabha member expelled from the AIADMK, had taken several precautionary measures and had made elaborate arrangements to ensure that she got unprecedented security cover when she appeared before the Madras High Court Bench here on Monday.
The Hindu is in possession of a copy of a letter written on her letterhead to the Station House Officer (SHO) of North Avenue Police Station at New Delhi on August 26, the day when the Supreme Court ordered her to comply with summons issued by the Madras High Court, seeking protection.
The letter signed by her reads: “As you [are] aware of my position that due to the political turmoil between me and my party leader Madam J. Jayalalithaa, many false complaints and cases were filed against me at Madurai High Court…
“On Monday, as I need to appear in front of the Madras High Court, I fear that party leader may stimulate [sic] party cadres to attack,” she said in her letter to the police.
Further, apprehending threat to her life, she requested the Delhi police to coordinate with the Tamil Nadu police for providing necessary protection to her.
A similar request was made to the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) personnel guarding the main building of the High Court Bench complex here.
Hence, the CISF, besides providing her with tight security, videographed her entire movement in the court building.
