Sunday, Nov 17, 2002
Sunday, Nov 17, 2002 |
| Southern States | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Southern States
-
Tamil Nadu
By J. Venkatesan
Mr. Vaiko said the turmoil in Sri Lanka resulted in the influx of Tamil refugees to India and any reference to the turmoil could not be regarded as a support to terrorism. Recalling the peace talks going on in Sri Lanka between the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE and observance of ceasefire, he said at the instance of the Norwegian Government, negotiations and peace talks were held in Thailand, which had been welcomed by India, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia and China. He said it was not possible to refer to the ethnic Tamil problem of Sri Lanka without making a mention about the LTTE, which had emerged as the sole representative of Tamils, supported by all the Tamil groups of north and east and also by the Tamils of Indian origin. With this background, he said he had expressed his views on Eelam Tamils at the public meeting organised by the party on June 29, for which Sec. 21 of POTA had been invoked against him. Mr. Vaiko contended that any expression opposing a particular viewpoint could not be regarded as dangerous to the safety or security of the country and all expressions that did not find the approval of those exercising the power of the State could not be regarded as harmful to the State or to the public order. He said the freedom of expression could not be held to ransom by an "intolerant government for political vendetta.'' Mr. Vaiko said he was arrested by the Thirumangalam Police for offences under Sec. 13 (1) (a) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Sections 21 (2) and (3) of the POTA and Sections 109 and 120 B IPC for addressing a public meeting. He said during the meeting he had explained to the public his participation in Parliament debate. However, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirumangalam, said that stating anything in Parliament might be a privilege of an MP but the same thing outside Parliament could not be considered as privileged. He said the petition was preferred for protection, vindication and enforcement of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) and (c) of 21 of the Constitution by declaring Sec. 21 (1) and (3) of the POTA as ultra vires the Constitution. He said substantial questions of law were involved in this case, viz. whether Sec. 21 (1) and (3) of POTA offended Article 19 (1) (a) and (c) of the Constitution. "Does the mere expression of sympathy for Tamils in Sri Lanka for whom the LTTE has become the sole representative, recognised by the international community amount to support to a terrorist organisation under the POTA, thereby empower the State of Tamil Nadu to curtail the petitioner's personal liberty.'' Whether by virtue of Article 105 of the Constitution, an MP was protected from criminal liability when he informed the public outside Parliament as to what he said in Parliament during the deliberations; whether a recognised political party was not entitled to hold opinions and to receive and import information and idea without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers and influence the public through political discussion; Does the citizens' right to know about the public acts of public functionaries include the disclosure of debates without restriction by the MP? Mr. Vaiko assailed Sec. 21 of POTA on the ground that it "restricts freedom of expression'' and hence "it is violative of Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution, and therefore, unconstitutional.'' Further, this section directly attempted to curtail citizens' freedom of speech and expression, his right to assemble peacefully and without arms. He argued that freedom of speech and expression "means the right to express one's opinion by words of mouth, writing, printing, picture or in any other manner. It would include freedom of communication and right to propagate or publish opinion and it could not be suppressed''. He contended that educating the public and inviting their attention to the suffering of mankind and carry on propaganda for the purpose of enlightening as large a number of people in India as possible to derive support for the speaker "does not necessarily amount to support of any terrorist activity of any organisation. Therefore, the verbal support cannot be curtailed and any curtailment would be violation of the right of expression.'' Mr. Vaiko said the vagueness of the definition coupled with enhanced punishment based on harsher procedures enabled the political parties in power to deal with political opposition as terrorist crimes.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | Home |
Copyright © 2002, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
