Criticising the State government for the police action against a section of pro-jallikattu protesters on January 23, the Madras High Court’s principal seat as well as the Madurai Bench on Monday separately sought its response to allegations of police excess and a demand for an external probe into the incidents.
The police and the government had justified the lathi-charge against the protesters, alleging that a mob had attacked the police and resorted to stone-pelting and arson.
Justice A. Selvam, who was leading a Division Bench along with Justice P. Kalaiyarasan in Madurai, questioned why even an elderly woman was not spared by the police at the Marina in Chennai.
Hearing a petition seeking a judicial inquiry into alleged police excesses against the protesters in Madurai, the judge referred to some visuals shown on television channels and questioned the Additional Advocate General B. Pugalendhi why the elderly woman was beaten. “What did that woman do sir? Poor woman, she was just sitting on the beach. Probably, you’ll say that some miscreants had done in it in the guise of police,” the judge said.
Separately, hearing a batch of petitions on the issue in Chennai, Justice R. Mahadevan directed the government to file a counter affidavit in two weeks, explaining the action taken against the police personnel involved. He made it clear to the Advocate General that the affidavit should contain answers as to why force was used against “peaceful” protesters and an explanation on the allegation that injured protesters were denied treatment.
The judge passed the directions on pleas moved by senior advocate R. Gandhi and advocate B. Kumar seeking a CBI probe into the incident. Claiming that the police have completely failed to follow the guidelines set by the apex court for handling or dispersing a mob and the Police Standing Order, the petitioners contended that the State police cannot be allowed to probe their own case. Besides seeking adequate compensation for those injured in the violence, Mr. Gandhi also urged the court to restrain the police from using lathi against the people.
During the arguments, advocate K. Balu, appearing for Mr. Kumar, pointed out that the police had claimed that some anti-socials had rented police uniforms and indulged in violence. “If the allegation is true, then it is a more serious issue,” he said.
To this, Justice Mahadevan said, “Officials had failed to understand that such statements made by them would actually go against them.”
‘Police exercised restraint’
In Madurai, the Additional Advocate General (AAG) argued that the police had maintained utmost restraint during the jallikattu protests. “For six days, we kept quiet,” he said.
Stating that 48 people had been arrested here on charges of damaging public property and produced before the jurisdictional judicial magistrates for being remanded in judicial custody, the AAG said that the accused were represented by around 50 advocates when they were produced before the Magistrate.
“The petitioner (P. Kanagavel) itself is an advocate and he himself is an accused in one of the crime numbers. Whether he can maintain this PIL petition is also questionable,” the AAG said, and pointed out that more than 100 policemen had also suffered injuries during the operation to disperse the protesters.
On the other hand, the petitioner’s counsel T. Lajapathi Roy accused the police of having damaged government buses and shifting the blame on the protesters. “It was the police who were involved in arson and who damaged the buses,” he told the judges and insisted on admitting the case and ordering notices to the police officers.
