A public interest litigation petition has been filed in the Madras High Court challenging the clamping of prohibitory orders in Radhapuram taluk of Tirunelveli district in the backdrop of the agitation against the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project.
In the petition, P. Pugalenthi, an advocate, quoting press reports on March 20, stated that the prohibitory orders under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. had been issued by the Tirunelveli Collector to prevent the villagers of the taluk, comprising 50 villages, from moving from one place to another.
Thousands of villagers were virtually under house arrest.
In the guise of exercising his powers to maintain public peace and tranquillity, the Collector had deprived the people of the taluk of their right to move freely from one place to another. No material had been furnished by the authorities explaining the necessity of imposing the “unreasonable restriction.”
More than 3,000 people, largely women, who were participating in the protest against the commissioning of the nuclear power plant in Idinthakarai village, who had come to meet their parents near the place of protest had no option but to remain there without food and other basic amenities.
The protest had been going on for months together. No untoward incident had been reported.
The protest, which was alleged to be posing a threat to public peace, was non-violent, the petitioner said. Mr. Pugalenthi prayed the court to declare the action of the Collector in clamping the prohibitory order as null and void.
Two more PIL petitions filed
Staff Reporter from Madurai writes:
Two public interest litigation petitions have been filed in the Madras High Court Bench in Madurai alleging the denial of essential requirements such as water, electricity, milk, vegetables, oil and rice to the residents of Idinthakarai, the hub of the protests against Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project.
While one PIL petition filed by lawyer S. Vanchinathan urged the court to appoint an advocate commissioner to visit Idinthakarai and ascertain the situation, the other filed by human rights activist A. Marx sought a direction to the police to desist from preventing access to essential requirements.
The second petitioner also sought a direction to the police and revenue officials to lift the prohibitory orders issued under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the locality, besides restraining the police from disturbing the villagers who were fasting peacefully.
In his petition, Mr. Vanchinathan also sought a direction to the police to permit him to meet the families of 11 individuals, including Sivasubramanian and Athilingam, who were arrested on March 19, and make arrangements for getting them enlarged on bail.
Claiming that about 190 individuals had been arrested, he alleged that the police were denying legal assistance to them.
