Justice N. Kirubakaran of the Madras High Court on Wednesday criticised both the DMK and the AIADMK for “indulging in hate politics” by filing cases against each other even over petty issues.
He made the observation before reserving orders on a petition filed by an AIADMK worker to register a criminal case against DMK treasurer M.K. Stalin for having used the Public Works Department guesthouse at Kanyakumari for 20 minutes during the Lok Sabha election campaign on March 14.
The petitioner, K.G. Uthayakumar, said Mr. Stalin had used the guesthouse for holding discussions with party leaders, including the former Minister, N. Suresh Rajan, though the Election Commission had banned the use of government accommodation for political activities.
Wondering what kind of political activity could have taken place within 20 minutes, the judge said the leader would have gone there to use the rest room. “The filing of this case will not serve any purpose…” except publicity, he told counsel for the petitioner.
When Veera Kathiravan, counsel for Mr. Stalin, said the case had been filed with a mala fide intention, the judge retorted: “You are no different than them. You also do the same thing when you are in power. Only in Tamil Nadu do we have such a bad political culture. It is not so in the north.”
Later, Mr. Kathiravan pointed out that a criminal case could not be registered against Mr. Stalin because the complainant had not accused him of having committed a cognisable offence (crimes which empower the police to arrest the accused without a warrant from court).
He said the petitioner had made a representation to the District Election Officer, and it was up to the Collector to decide whether a case should be registered under Section 188 (disobedience of order promulgated by a public servant) of the Indian Penal Code.
However, senior counsel V. Kathirvelu, who appeared for the petitioner, said the police must be ordered to act on the complaint.
Additional Advocate-General K. Chellapandian said the Superintendent of Police had forwarded the complaint to the Collector. “The Collector, in turn, forwarded the complaint to the District Revenue Officer for an inquiry, and the DRO has issued summons to the complainant,” he said.
