V P KALAIRAJAN Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE V. P. Kalairajan, District Secretary for South Chennai of All Indian Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, has filed HCP No. 1009 of 2006 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for a direction to the respondents to set at liberty the detenus, viz. , Sivaprakash, Arumugam, Gavaskar, Gopu Selvam, Ramamurthy, Kumar, Vembuli, Kutty @ Gajendran, N. V. Selvam, Elumalai, Nithya, Ravi, Sakthivel, Arokyaraj, Arputharaj, Iyyapan, Babu, C. Kesavam, Madhanagopal, Manoharan, Nachiappan, Kumar, Seenu, Mohan, Shankar, Hari, Chakravarthy, Vinayagam, Sridher, Mahimairaj, Baskaran, Anandhan, Murugan, H. Venkatesan, Katturajan, Ramesh, Ravi, Elumalai, P. Ashok, Sathya, Lakshmanan, Gugan, Kamudhin, Balaji, Viswanathan, Harikrishnan, K. Rajendran, Subramani, Sunil, Kadhiravan, Anbu, Stills Ravi, Vijayan @ Periyarji, Radhakrishnan, Durai, Musthapha, Sivaraj (Metro Water), Kumar, Adhi Shankar, Rajini, Ramesh, Gopi, Perumal, Jothi, Malai Megu, Sahul Ameed, Ravi, Devan, Ramesh and Arumugam, who have been arrested vindictively with election prospects in mind by the respondents.

(2.) IN the affidavit filed in support of the above Petition, it is stated as follows:-The State Election Commission announced on 16. 09. 2006 that elections in respect of local bodies such as Panchayat Unions, District Panchayats, Town Panchyats, Grade III Municipalities, Municipalities and Corporations, will be held on 13. 10. 2006 and 15. 10. 2006. In view of the said notification, the election process was set in motion. Ever since the ruling Dravida Mennetra Kazhagam Party came to power, ie. , since 13. 5. 2006, the law and order situation in Tamil Nadu is deteriorating and deplorable. The members belonging to the ruling party were given free hand to commit crimes atrocities. Many persons, who were detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) were suddenly released to canvas for the ruling party. About 71 persons were arrested by the State Police without following the due process of law. No law permits any detention in such a massive manner that too by lifting the persons during midnight or early morning while they were asleep. The reasons for the arrest and the nature of offences said to have been committed were not informed to the persons arrested. Their family members were also not informed about the arrest. The action of the respondent is in clear violation of the requirements to be followed as declared by the Supreme Court in D. K. Basu's case (1997 (1) SCC 416 ). It is further stated that, when all the above mentioned persons were produced before the Magistrate, they were mechanically remanded, thereby depriving them of their fundamental rights as guaranteed under the Constitution. The learned Magistrate did not even apply her mind and failed to peruse the records including the case diaries so as to satisfy the real necessity to remand the accused persons. Offence under Section 7 (1) (a) of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, is not made out, hence, the remand is bad in law. The Bail Applications filed by the detenu are sought to be adjourned beyond the election dates at the instance of the respondents. It is stated that, in view of the fact the respondents have not complied with the directions of the Supreme Court in D. K. Basu's case and of the fact that the learned Magistrate remanded all the persons without applying her mind, having no other remedy, the present petition is preferred invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) ONE Mrs. Santha, wife of Ashok, residing at No. 61/2, Vethagiri Maistry Street, Chindadripet, Chennai-2, sent a telegram, dated 08. 10. 2006, through fax to the Hon'ble The Chief Justice stating that her husband Ashok was taken to unknown place by the Inspector of Police, F-2 Chindadirpet police Station, Chennai, on 08. 10. 2006, and prayed for his release by treating the same as Habeas Corpus Petition. On the orders of the Hon'ble The Chief Justice, the said Telegram was ordered to be treated as Habeas Corpus Petition, viz. , HCP No. 1018 of 2006, and came to be posted before us for necessary orders.