Chennai: The state public prosecutor has informed the Madras high court that the revenue and police officials have obtained the statements of a total of 119 MLAs, who are presently staying in Kancheepuram district’s Koovathur, to the effect that they are free and safe and staying there on their own volition.
Public prosecutor R. Rajarathinam made his submission when the habeas corpus petitions to produce MLAs M. Geetha and R.T. Ramachandran and to set them at liberty came up for hearing before Justices M. Jaichandran and T. Mathivanan.
The public prosecutor also produced the statements obtained by a team of 11 officials from revenue and police department from the two MLAs before the bench. After hearing elaborate arguments from both sides, the bench reserved orders on the petitions filed by V. Preetha and M.V. Elavarasan.
While Ms Preetha sought a direction to the police to produce her cousin Geetha, MLA from Krishnaray-apuram Assembly constituency, before the court and set her at liberty, Elavarasan, a voter from Kunnam Assembly constituency in Pera-mbalur district sought a direction to the police to produce Mr Ramachandr-an, MLA from Kunnam constituency, before the court and set him at liberty.
Earlier, referring to the counter affidavit filed by the police, K. Balu, counsel for Elavarasan submitted that so many issues were left out in the counter. The court has to look into various aspects whether all the MLAs were free and safe, whether facilities were available to those who were suffering from ailments.
“We have apprehension that the public prosecutor’s office is misdirected or mis-instructed. They have not brought out the full facts.” Thousands of rowdy elements were staying in and around the resort. They were threatening the local people, who in fact had conducted agitation. Even on Sunday, several reporters were attacked and their phones and cameras were snatched away by the rowdy elements. The counter affidavit is silent in all these aspects.
The court may appoint a retired judge of this court, as an advocate commissioner to visit the place, meet the MLAs and file a report. The court may also appoint an amicus curie to assist the court, Balu added.
Preetha contended that while counter affidavit states that Geetha was staying with her husband, the newspaper reports states that her husband complained that his wife was missing. Producing the statement recorded in the presence of the Tahsildars from the two MLAs, public prosecutor Rajarathinam submitted that they had given a statement that they were free and safe and they were staying in the resort of their own volition.
A team comprising one ADSP, four inspectors, four sub-inspectors and two tahsildars went to the resort on February 11 and gave questionnaires to 100 plus 19 MLAs (indirectly meaning 100 in one resort and 19 in another resort). They filled up the questionnaire in writing on their own stating that they were staying in the resort of their own volition.
When Sasikala met the reporters yesterday, the MLAs were also present and they could have raised the issue and informed the media if they were in illegal custody, he added. Immediately Balu asked whether the Public Prosecutor was representing the state or Sasikala and the PP said he was representing the state and not Sasikala.
The bench pointed out that it has only limited scope in HCP to see as to whether the detenues were in illegal custody or not and it cannot assume the role of Governor by asking all the MLAs to come to the court and enquire of them, besides it cannot expand the scope under Article 226 or 482 of the Constitution. Countering, advocate A.P.Suryaprakasam, who was present in the court, said as a voter he had already filed a petition to direct the police to ensure the free movement of all the MLAs. He said, “Democracy is at stake. As custodian of democracy, in the interest of general public, the court can expand its scope and ensure that the MLAs, who are representatives of the general public, are safe”.
When the bench sought PP’s reaction to the suggestion made by Balu to appoint an advocate commissioner and amicus curie, the PP said they were not believing the state PP and Additional PP. So far as appointment of amicus curie was concerned, he has to get instructions.
“Let them also tell with whom I have to get instructions because there is one party and two divisions. If I get instruction from one side, the other division will object. If I agree for appointment of amicus curie, the other division (Sasikala) will object. Even the Governor is not allowing the party to produce the MLAs”. Immediately, the bench said “Why? The government is functioning. Chief Secretary and Home Secretary are there”.
The PP said in the matter of HCP, the court has limited scope. If the court prima facie finds that the detenues were in illegal detention, then it can issue directions. But, in this case, the two MLAs were not in illegal detention and they have filed their own statements to this effect.
When the bench again asked the PP as to what he has to say about the suggestion made by Balu to appoint Advocate Commissioner and amicus curie, PP said he was opposing the suggestion. “If I accept the suggestion then I suspect my own police. We trust our officers”. If the petitioners want let them file a PIL.
Balu said even the Chief Minister was having apprehension. He made a statement that he will go to the resort but he is afraid that something will happen. So, let the MLAs come to Chennai and stay here freely, Balu added, to which the PP replied, “Let the Governor take a decision. There ends the matter”.
