The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the Tamil Nadu government for engaging attorney-general Mukul Rohatgi to argue its appeal against refusal of two days police custody to folk artiste Kovan, alias Sivadas, who was arrested on charges of sedition for uploading songs defamatory to Tamil Nadu chief minister J. Jayalalithaa and disturbing public peace. Kovan was later released on bail.
A bench of Justices Ibrahim Kalifulla and Uday Lalit on seeking the A-G orally observed, “Why should the attorney-general appear against small persons (like the respondent Kovan). Is it such a big case that the office of the A-G should be engaged We see no merits. We don’t want to interfere with the high court order. Dismissed.”
The Tamil Nadu government on Friday moved the Supreme Court seeking to quash the interim order passed by the Madras high court rejecting two-day police custody to folk artiste Kovan, alias Sivadas, who was arrested on charges of sedition, for uploading “defamatory” electronic content against Ms Jayalalithaa and “disturbing” public peace. On November 16, he was granted bail by the principal sessions judge, Chenni.
In its appeal against the Madras high court’s order, the state, through its counsel Yogesh Khanna, justified the prosecution’s demand for police custody of Kovan as the accused had failed to disclose any information.
The High Court interfered with the order passed by the lower court granting police custody.
The 54-year-old Kovan, propagandist singer of ultra Left arts and literary outfit ‘Makkal Kalai Ilakkiya Kazhagam’, was arrested in Tiruchirapalli on October 30 and on November 7 the High Court stayed the trial court’s order granting police custody. The High Court had observed that the lower court’s decision was based on police apprehension that Kovan could have links with Naxals, but the Public Prosecutor did not have material to support the claim.
The High Court rejected the State’s charge that there was a need to probe Mr.Kovan’s role as a member of People’s Art and Literary Association (PALA), as it was not a banned outfit It fauled the prosecution for filing the FIR under Sections 66 (A) of the Information Technology Act, a provision no longer on the statute.
The State in its appeal said two FIRs were already pending against Kovan and he could not be arrested as he was absconding. There was apprehension that he had links with naxals, which could be brought about only after custodial interrogation. The High Court was wrong in staying the trial court order without proper appreciation of the facts, it said and sought quashing of the impugned order, and a direction to grant police custody of the accused.
