Support Terror, Commit Treason, Get away with it ! – I

THE BACKGROUND: Politics of Tamil Eelam

As the LTTE kept losing its bastions one by one to the advancing Sri Lankan Army and as chief Prabhakaran was on the run to save his life while young Tigers sacrificed their lives, the ethnic (sic) Dravidian politicians of Tamil Nadu started enacting different dramas of one-upmanship to project themselves as champions of the Sri Lankan
Tamil cause. In the process, they roped in their cadres – women, youth,
trade unions, lawyers and even students – to join the protest movement.
All pro-LTTE parties, especially the DK, PMK, VCK and MDMK, formed a
separate forum for the exclusive purpose of supporting LTTE.

While the TNCC remained silent, DMK being a part of the Congress-led UPA government, has been forced to walk a tightrope on the Sri Lankan Tamils
issue. But the AIADMK, which has been against the cause of “Tamil
Eelam” for years, suddenly shifted its stand and supremo Jayalalithaa
staged a day-long fast in support of Tamil Eelam, though not in support
of LTTE, protesting against the Sri Lankan government and condemning
the Central and State governments. The politics of Tamil Eelam caught
on even with the BJP, which jumped on to the bandwagon of the pro-LTTE
parties. 
 

As
temperatures rose, the legal fraternity took to frequent protest
demonstrations. The birthday of LTTE chief Prabhakaran was celebrated
in the premises of Chennai High Court in November 2008 by a section of
lawyers. Since then, the lawyers have been indulging in some form of
protest or other quite often.

As
the politics over the issue deteriorated, a major section of lawyers
upped the ante and various lawyers’ associations declared boycott of
court proceedings and forcefully prevented other sincere lawyers from
work, sometimes intimidating them. Senior advocates were even
manhandled in front of judges and prevented from attending to their
work.

While
walking a tightrope with the Centre, the State Government turned a
blind eye to the continuous boycott of courts in Tamil Nadu. The
hapless judiciary could not reign in the unruly lawyers and allowed
them to use the court premises and corridors for demonstrations in
support of the LTTE. The right-thinking section of senior advocates
lacked the spine to control the unruly section of the fraternity. The
indifference shown by the State, Bar and Judiciary led to the unsavoury
episode on 17 February, resulting in the untoward violence on 19
February. 
 

THE ORGANISATION:



The anti-national organisation and the seriousness of the issue. 
 

LATER DEVELOPMENTS:



What happened after Justice Srikrishna Commission’s report.
 

When the Supreme Court transferred the concerned cases back to the Madras High Court
and advised the lawyers to attend to their duties, the latter refused
to budge and continued their protests by ‘burning’ the Srikrishna
Commission report, which strongly indicted them for unruly conduct and
indulgence in violence.

Advocate S. Doraisamy, of Dravidar Kazhagam,
moved the High Court for a direction to the CBI to register an FIR on
his complaint, in which he alleged that following instructions from the
Chief Minister, the Home Secretary had directed the DGP and City Police Commissioner
to beat agitating advocates. He sought registration of cases against
the police under IPC Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy) and Section
307 (attempt to murder)! The Women Lawyers Association moved the High
Court to take criminal action against all police personnel involved in
the violent incidents. It contended that the police violated the ‘human
rights’ of the advocates. 
 

Meanwhile, based on the advice
of the Chief Minister and the resolution passed by the party, some DMK
and DK lawyers started attending court. On 13 March, when the First
Bench comprising Chief Justice H.L. Gokhale and Justice F.M. Ibrahim
Kalifulla refused to suspend the police officers through an ex-parte
order, and as it was giving interim orders after hearing the batch of
petitions from the advocates, the latter are believed to have created a
ruckus on the point that the Government Pleader was trying to drag on
the issue.

They
reportedly shouted at the Chief Justice, “Shame, shame! Go back to
Allahabad”. A section of the media reported that the advocates hurled
vulgar invectives. An English daily said, “Mercifully the CJ does not
understand Tamil”! It seemed the Government Pleader had to sneak away
through the judge’s exit, fearing physical attack from the lawyers.

The
High Court warned the lawyers through a circular that cases would be
decided on “merit” in the event of lawyers continuing the boycott.
Reacting to this warning, the lawyers submitted memoranda to the Registrar General
expressing their desire to opt out of the cases and return the same to
the litigants. The state level Joint Action Committee of advocates
resolved to abstain from functions organized by courts throughout Tamil
Nadu. Through another resolution, they requested lawyers in the legal
aid panel not to accept any assignment or brief referred by any court
of law. The lawyers decided to conduct a huge protest rally on 19 March.
 

AUTHORITIES & ACTIONS:



What the authorities could have done and how they fared.
 

Fourth, the Supreme Court of India (read Chief Justice of India) should have issued a “Writ Mandamus”
to the High Court to take action against the unruly lawyers. But even
when a petition against the continuing boycott by lawyers came up for
hearing, it preferred only to ‘advise’ the lawyers to return to work.
Again, when it heard the petitions regarding the High Court violence,
it preferred to constitute a judicial commission, which was not
warranted at all. It should have passed orders for the punishment of
the seditious lawyers and facilitated the normal functioning of the
High Court. Instead, it preferred to order “punishment transfers” for Police Commissioners and “words of advice” for treacherous lawyers supporting an anti-national terrorist organisation.

The
Supreme Court did not take notice of the 17 February episode, and did
not consider the fact that the lawyers involved in that episode have
over a hundred cases registered against them! When it could order
transfer of police officers, why couldn’t it order the arrest of those
lawyers? Even after taking up the Justice Srikrishna Commission’s
report for hearing, the Supreme Court simply transferred it back to the
very same State Judiciary which was condemned by the Commission for
“soft-pedaling” the volatile issue. Though such transfer is
constitutionally valid, would the State Judiciary take note of the
Commission’s report which had condemned it? The lawyers have had the
audacity to burn the Commission’s report and continue the boycott, in a
show of utmost contempt. 
 

Fifth and more importantly,
there has been not even a murmur from the Centre, the PMO and the
President’s office! Here is a State where a section of lawyers have
been violently demonstrating in support of a banned terrorist
organisation and the courts have not functioned for more than sixty
days, but the Central Government has taken no notice! The Cabinet has
not bothered to discuss this issue and it is not known if the
President’s office has asked the Governor for a report on the collapse
of the State’s legal and judicial system!

Just
because Tamil Nadu is governed by an ally does not mean the Centre
should remain indifferent; just because the Cabinet has not sent any
report does not mean the President should remain silent. Here is a most
apt case for Article 356, as demanded by the opposition; sadly the
Centre is mute.

Responses