K. Radhakrishnan “solely responsible” for police-lawyers clash on High Court campus

Former Additional Police Commissioner files proof affidavit

April 07, 2010 01:55 am | Updated 01:55 am IST - CHENNAI:

Former Additional Police Commissioner A.K. Viswanathan has said that the then Chennai Police Commissioner, K. Radhakrishnan, was solely responsible for the police-lawyers clash on the High Court campus on February 19 last year.

Mr. Viswanathan has submitted this in his proof affidavit before a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Justices F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla and R. Banumathi, which had initiated contempt proceedings against Mr. Viswanathan, Mr. Radhakrishnan, the then Joint Commissioner of Police, North, M. Ramasubramani and Deputy Commissioner, Flower Bazaar, Premanand Sinha, in connection with the incidents.

He said, “I have reason to believe that the vigilance enquiry was ordered against me in order to compel the other police officers to support the false report and false affidavits filed by Thiru Radhakrishnan before this court.”

Mr. Viswanathan said he had trusted the then Commissioner and obeyed his orders. Had he known that the then Acting Chief Justice had ordered the withdrawal of the police force from the premises, he would have obeyed his orders. Unaware of the court orders, he had believed the Commissioner and obeyed his orders. Arumugaperumal Adityan, who was then a High Court Judge, and others sustained injuries only after Mr. Radhakrishnan arrived with additional reinforcements and resorted to lathi-charge.

He submitted that Mr. Ramasubramani and Mr. Premanand Sinha were also not responsible for the incidents. “Thiru Radhakrishnan alone is solely responsible for the incidents.” When the matter came up before the Bench, K.M. Vijayan, senior counsel for Mr. Radhakrishnan, mentioned that he was seeking transfer of the contempt proceedings to another Bench. Mr. Radhakrishnan had already submitted a letter to the Chief Justice in this regard.

Tamil Nadu Advocates Association president S. Prabakaran objected to the request for transfer and said the court had already issued contempt notice.

Adjourning the matter to June 11, Mr. Justice Kalifulla said he was giving an opportunity to counsel to move the Chief Justice in the matter.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.