J GEETHA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(2.) THE order of detention under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') was passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai on 16.12.2006 and the same was executed on 18.12.2006. THE detention order indicates that such order was passed with a view to preventing the detenu Jaishankar from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. THE grounds of detention dated 16.12.2006 were served on 20.12.2006. Such grounds indicate that the detenu and two other persons, namely, Tvl.Thanga Muthu.Krishnan and Ganapathi Ravi who belong to Hindu Makkal Katchi and Siva Sena political party were standing at the entrance of the Government Estate surrounded by about 25 members of public. Two persons, namely, Tvl.Srinivasan and Dayalan were proceeding in the opposite direction. Thiru Thanga.Muthukrishnan came out of the crowd and caught hold of the hand of Thiru Srinivasan by saying,(Both of you wait. Listen my words. Read this notice-English translation)and also handed over pamphlets to both Tvl.Srinivasan and Dayalan. It is further stated that Tvl.Thanga.Muthukrishnan and Ganapathy Ravi issued such pamphlets also to others who are at the spot. It is further stated that the detenu addressed the gathering by saying,(Further Thiru Jaishankar addressed the gathering by saying "Periyar statue was installed in front of Srirangam Ranganathar Temple. Like this can the Dravidar Kazhagam install Periyar statue either in front of a Mosque or a Church if such a statue was installed by D.K.activists, that Muslims and Christians joined together would break and destroy all the Periyar statue in Tamil Nadu and would also murder all the D.K.activists."-English translation) He further warned the State Government by saying,(He further warned the State Government by saying "THE Government should not give permission to the Dravidar Kazhagam headed by Veeramani to hold conference on the coming 16th at Srirangam. If permission is granted we all should assemble there and indulge in violence and like Muslims throw stones at Sathan at Mecca during Huj pilgrimage and has Sabarimala devotees throw stones at Sathan in Sarankuthi (on the way to Sabarimala), we should throw stones at Periyar statue and that statue should be destroyed.-English translation). THEreafter, Thiru Srinivasan lodged a complaint at D7, Government Estate Police Station, Chennai City against the detenu, Thanga.Muthukrishnan and Ganapathi Ravi enclosing the pamphlets requesting the police to take action. THE Inspector of Police, D7, Government Estate police station registered Cr.No.120/2006 u/s 341, 153(A), 505(1)(b) and (c) and 505(2) IPC and the Inspector of Police seized the pamphlets produced by the said Thiru Srinivasan and investigation was taken up by the Assistant Commissioner of Police. THE Assistant Commissioner visited the spot and prepared rough sketch and observation mahazar and examined witnesses and recorded their statements. THE detenu was arrested on 11.12.2006 at 20.45 hours at Central Railway Station, Chennai and was examined. His confessional statement was recorded. At the time of arrest it was also found that the detenu was in possession of 10 sets of such pamphlets which was seized under cover of Mahazar. Further interrogation revealed that subsequent to the damage of the Periyar statue at Srirangam in front of the Sri Aranganathar temple, the detenu prepared pamphlets instigating the general public to indulge in acts of violence and stated,(can the Dravidar Kazhagam install Periyar statue either in front of a Mosque or a Church if such a statue was installed by D.K.activists, that Muslims and Christians joined together would break and destroy all the Periyar statue in Tamil Nadu and would also murder all the D.K.activists.-English translation)and the detenu deliberately issued provocative statement with intention to create clashes between Dravida Kazhagam who are the non-believers of god and the Hindu believers in God and also to promote enmity between religion groups namely Hindus and Muslims and Hindus and Christians and to create chaos and confusion in the State and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. THE grounds of detention further disclose the detenu also conducted press meet at the Press Club at Government Estate on 11.12.2006, released pamphlets and distributed press note to the press personnel and asked them to give wide publicity. THE press note contains the following:(1.THE Chief Minister is an accused because he permitted to install the Periyar statue.2.THE court also accused because it did not grant interim injunction against installation.3.Creating confusion in Tamil Nadu by inciting clash between religions by asking whether the status could be installed in front of Church and Mosque.-English translation) It is further recited thus the detenu had deliberately issued the statement solely with intention to disturb the public peace and communal harmony in the peaceful State. Further in the press note, he went to the extent of criticizing the judicial system and accused the Honourable Court since the Honourable Court had not granted stay for the unveiling of the statue of Periyar at Srirangam. In paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention it is further stated as under:".

(3.) IN the above said factual matrix, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions:(i) The detaining authority has mechanically passed the order of detention without application of mind inasmuch as the detaining authority has not gone through the so called press note relied upon in internal page 3 of the grounds of detention. Similarly, the detaining authority has not gone through the so called pamphlet relied upon in paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention.(ii) Even assuming that the detaining authority has gone through any such materials, the protection guaranteed under Article 22(5) has not been complied with inasmuch as the copy of the press note and the pamphlet available in the booklet furnished to the detenu did not contain the recital to the following effect."1. The Chief Minister is an accused because he permitted to install the Periyar statue. 2. The court also accused because it did not grant interim injunction against installation. 3. Creating confusion in Tamil Nadu by inciting clash between religions by asking whether the statue could be installed in front of Church and Mosque."(iii) Even though the detenu had made a specific request for furnishing such press note which contains the recited portion (in page No.3 and the pamphlets which contain the portion recited in page 4 paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention which have already been extracted) were not furnished to the detenu and a mechanical reply was given and that too after a long lapse of time on 2.3.2007 stating that all the documents had been furnished. By the above process the detenu was deprived of an opportunity of making effective representation.(iv) The representation sent by the wife of the detenu before passing of the order of detention was also not considered by application of mind and on the other hand, a mechanical reply was given by the detaining authority.(v) The order of detention has been passed in a pre-determined manner inasmuch as on 11.12.2006 itself even before there was any proposal by the sponsoring authority for passing any order of detention, the detaining authority herself has issued a press release which appeared in all the newspapers on 12.12.2006 indicating that it had already been decided to detain the detenu under the National Security Act which would indicate that the detaining authority has proceeded in a pre-determined manner.