PIL against Maran, Baalu

By A. Subramani

CHENNAI, AUG. 10. A public interest petition challenging the withdrawal of cases against the two Union Ministers, Mr. Murasoli Maran and Mr. T.R. Baalu, has been filed in the Madras High Court. (Cases were registered against the Union Ministers under various Sections for allegedly obstructing police officers from discharging their duties on June 30 when the former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, Mr. M. Karunanidhi, was arrested in connection with the `mini-flyover scam case'). The petitioner, Mr. Dwarakanathan of Erode, has also sought a direction to call for the records on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and quash the same ``as illegal, incompetent, irregular and without jurisdiction''.

According to the petitioner, the Union Government had issued a direction, under Article 355 of the Constitution, urging the State to drop all proceedings against Mr. Maran and Mr. Baalu; to initiate disciplinary action against some police officers; to run the State in consonance with the Constitution; and to withdraw any directions issued to Sun TV.

Noting that the Ministers had committed criminal offence by preventing officers from discharging their duties, the petitioner accused the State Government of buckling under pressure when it asked the Police Commissioner to withdraw the cases against the Ministers on July 3. ``The investigation came to a grinding halt and all actions were dropped.''

The petitioner accused the Union Ministers of chasing police, beating them up and abusing them in indecent language, when Mr. Karunanidhi was being taken to the CB-CID headquarters, and also when they wanted to search the house of Mr. Maran. The rules of practice required that the Speaker of the Lok Sabha should be informed if an MP was arrested, Mr. Dwarakanathan said, adding, ``it is not known under what authority of law the Union Cabinet had issued the directives calling upon the State to drop the proceedings....''. The withdrawal from prosecution can be done with the consent of the court at any time before the judgment is pronounced at the instance of the Public Prosecutor. ``Any direction issued by the State Government is void ab initio and police ought to have ignored the same as unwarranted and grossly illegal. It is not for the Union Cabinet to exonerate the accused'', the petitioner argued. The PIL is likely to come up for hearing in the Madras High Court on Monday.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : National
Previous : UTI issue forces LS adjournment
Next     : Call for pre-1953 status to J&K