The Madras High Court on Monday refused to set aside an order passed by S. Gopinathan, XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, on October 9 refusing to remand ‘Nakkheeran’ Gopal, Editor of Tamil magazine Nakkheeran , in a case booked against him under Section 124 (a provision that deals with “assaulting President/Governor with intent to compel or restrain the exercise of any lawful power) of IPC.
Petition dismissed
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh dismissed a petition filed by the State challenging the refusal to remand.
He held there was nothing wrong in the Magistrate having sought the views of N. Ram, Chairman, THG Publishing Private Limited, when Mr. Gopal was produced by the police for remand since it was the first time Section 124 IPC had been invoked against a media house. Observing that a lot of intellectual debate was required on the question as to whether mere publication of news articles by a media house would attract the provisions of Section 124 IPC, the judge said, in such circumstances, the police ought not to have shown great urgency by resorting to arrest on the very next day of registering the complaint lodged by T. Sengottaiyan, Deputy Secretary to the Governor, on October 8. “Nowhere in the complaint it is stated that His Excellency the Governor of Tamil Nadu was apprised about the publication made in Nakkheeran and that he was satisfied that the publication prevents him from exercising his lawful powers and duties. The entire complaint reads as if the officer concerned (Deputy Secretary) was satisfied that the contents of the publication is fake/derogatory,” Mr. Justice Venkatesh said.
Police held guilty
Holding the police guilty of not scrupulously following the procedures enunciated under the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the famous D.K. Basu’s case while arresting Mr. Gopal, the judge said, the Magistrate had rightly refused to remand him to judicial custody by citing all these reasons apart from insufficiency of materials produced by the police to seek remand.
The judge said the Magistrate had rightly sought the views of Mr. Ram, “a reputed and senior journalist,” to know if there were any precedents of media houses being booked under Section 124 IPC for publication of articles.
Mr. Ram too had confined his arguments only to the extent of such draconian action affecting the freedom of the press and did not make any submissions on the merits of the case. Pointing out that Section 32 of the Advocates Act of 196 permits courts to elicit the views of third parties in order to render justice, the judge recalled that the Supreme Court too had held so in Harishankar Rastogi vs Girdhari Sharma way back in1978. Finally, holding that neither can the police arrest any person without following the requisite procedures nor magistrates remand such persons mechanically without passing speaking orders, the judge said, both would be liable for action if they violate these basic principles. He directed the High Court Registry to circulate his 79-page judgment to Director General of Police as well as Tamil Nadu Judicial Academy for educating the police and judicial officers.
He also recorded his appreciations for Special Prosecutor A. Ramesh and Mr. Gopal’s advocates P.T. Perumal and P. Kumaresan for enlightening the court with their impressive arguments in deciding the present case.
