Parties seem to patronise criminals, says High Court

The Kerala High Court on Friday expressed concern over the recent political patronising of criminals in the State.

Rejecting a bail petition filed by Karai Rajan and Karai Chandrasekharan, CPI(M) leaders in Kannur and accused in the case relating to the murder of NDF activist Mohammed Fazal, Justice P. Bhavadasan observed “it is very surprising and disturbing to note that in recent times political patronising of criminals is assuming alarming proportions.”

The court said that instead of weeding them out, political parties seemed to encourage them. Judicial propriety and restraint prevented “this court from saying anything further in the matter.”The Judge observed that one could only “lament” the recent trends in politics. The incidents of annihilation of defectors and rival party workers were on the increase. In fact, “act of brutality is indeed a threat to society and amounts to an open challenge of law,” the court said.

The court said it had on several occasions deprecated the practice of snuffing out lives of political rivals and stressed the need to sternly deal with such acts. The pleas of individual liberty were of no avail in such cases, the Judge said.

The Judge observed that merely because the victim in the incident could no longer follow the dictates of a political party and chose to dissociate himself from the said party, the parent party should be “belligerent and intolerant” of him, even if his dissociation and subsequent campaign may be against the interest of the said political party. (The prosecution case is that Mohammed Fazal, a former CPI(M) worker was murdered in 2006 for defecting to NDF).

The court said the materials available were not only suggestive of the knowledge and consent of the petitioners in the incident, but also their attempt to interfere with the proper investigation. They had consciously tried to put the blame on another political party knowing fully well the involvement of their party.

The conclusion drawn by the lower court that in all probability it was with the knowledge and consent of the petitioners that the incident had taken place had base.