As is the CM, So is the Regime

The First Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Chief Justice M.Y.Iqbal and Justice T.S.Sivagnanam passed an interim order on Nov.4 last staying until further orders the State government’s decision to shift the Anna Centenary Library in Kotturpuram in Chennai and further hearing was posted on Dec.5. When the matter came up on Dec.5, no counter affidavit was filed by the government side. Advocate General A.Navaneethakrishnan had produced a letter of the Additional Chief Secretary requesting a short adjournment for filing a detailed counter. The court allowed the prayer. As the AG sought adjournment after Pongal holidays, the Bench ordered that the case be listed on Jan.19, 2012.

Those who are accustomed to or following court cases relating to the government would be surprised at the development of the State administration unable to file its counter even after a month’s time in a case challenging an important announcement made by the Chief Minister, which in the normal course would have been done after much deliberations, consultations and reviews among top officials. And, the government pleading for yet another adjournment for more than a month is indeed flabbergasting. Unless the government’s position is very weak or the decision was taken in haphazard manner without considering implications and hence indefensible.

In the case of 13,636 Makkal Nala Paniyalargal (MNPs) who were removed from service by the ADMK regime by a GO on Nov.8, Justice K.Suguna passed an order on Nov.11 staying the GO in respect of two associations of the employees, Tamil Nadu Makkal Nala Paniyalargal Munnetra Sangam and Dindigul Mavatta Makkal Nala Paniyalargal Nala Sangam, whose names were provided to the court register on Nov.12 and permit them to join duty. This was following the AG advancing a flimsy ground challenging the representative capacity of the workers. Then on Nov.21, Justice K.Suguna directed the State government to reinstate all the sacked workers. The government through its counsel made a mention before the First Bench that the State wanted to file an appeal against the Single judge order and was asked to file a petition. On Nov.23, the First Bench comprising Chief Justice M.Y.Iqbal and Justice T.S.Sivagnanam dismissed the appeal and reiterated the stand of the single judge order over reinstating the workers. The judges said that the government should not treat the workers in such a manner whenever it comes to power.

Maintaining that the Tamil Nadu government before removing welfare workers from service should have given them an opportunity to be heard, the Madras High Court said the records "reveal appointment and ouster of these employees were done at the whims of the governments".

Holding that the single judge had rightly passed the interim order, the bench said it appeared from the record that employees of Tamil Nadu Makkal Nala Paniyalargal Munnettra Sangam and Dindigul Mavatta Makkal Nala Paniyalargal Nala Sangam were initially appointed in 1990 on a consolidated monthly pay of Rs 200 and were removed in 1991 due to change of the government. The judges pointed out that with the change of government every five years the workers were reappointed and removed. Counsel for the 'sangams' produced a letter dated November 21 issued by the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Commissioner to all district collectors to allow those MNPs whose names were furnished to the High Court to attend office in keeping with the court's direction.

Yet another blow for the ruling party and justice to the public prevailed, irrespective of their party affiliation. Because livelihood is an essential component for survival, even as the sacking orders reached, the workers were distressed and some attempted to end their lives. But then they rejoiced with the court reiterating to reinstate.

Again on Nov.24 when the issue compliance of the interim order of Nov.21 came up before the Single judge, the State Advocate General informed the court that the government had filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court against the dismissal of its plea challenging the stay. However, counsel for MNPs, R.Vaigai said the SLP was against the interim order and hence the final arguments on the petitions could be continued. The AG said, “We are ready to face anything” after which Vaigai commenced her arguments on the petitions..

The Supreme Court on Nov.29 pulled up the TN government observing that there should be ‘some rule of law in the State’. The Bench of Justice D.K.Jain and Justice Anil Dave, hearing the SLP against the interim order of the Madras HC directing reinstatement of MNPs, asked the State Additional Advocate General (AAG) Guru Krishna Kumar, “What is happening in your State?” Justice Jain told AAG, “Every five years you [State] appoint them. Thereafter, you remove them, again appoint them. Is there not a rule of law, there must be some rule of law in the State.” Senior counsel T.R. Andhyarujina, appearing for the associations, told the court that this was happening every time there was change of government. The AAG submitted, “Since the main writ petition was being heard today (Nov.29), we are not pressing this SLP at present. Let it be listed in the normal course. We will dispel the wrong impression created.” The Bench then posted the SLP for hearing on December 12.

But contrary to what the AAG told the Supreme Court the main writ petition which came for hearing before Justice K.Suguna in the Madras High Court on Nov.29, the Counsel for the government sought adjournment as the Advocate General was otherwise engaged and could not make his submission in the court. Thereafter, every time the Judge posted hearing on some other date, the government counsel came with the same excuse pleading for adjournment. Ultimately on Dec.15, the infuriated Judge asked the government counsel why they were dragging the case of poor contract workers like this and strictly directed that the Advocate General should be present without fail on the next day (Dec.16), to complete hearing in the case. The counsel for workers’ associations R.Vaigai said the government was protracting the case because their case was weak. The next day (Dec.16) Advocate General Navaneetha Krishnan and senior counsel N.R.Chandran appeared and made final arguments. Counsels for workers also completed final arguments. The judge then adjourned orders in the case without specifying date.

Similarly in a case of termination of service of 17 Office Assistants employed in the State Assembly department and Secretariat after the ADMK assumed power, their petition was admitted and notice issued on the government. The Finance department had put a note that only the Advocate General should appear in the case and the hapless sacked employees are being tossed around for months with the government counsel repeatedly seeking adjournments for the appearance of the AG.

In the case of Samacheer Kalvi also, we witnessed the government going on appeals after appeals to the Bench. Aggrieved parents of over 1.25 crore school-going children, and educationists protested and knocked the doors of judiciary. Throughout the State students agitated. Unmoved and adamant the ADMK regime brought an amendment Act to postpone implementation of the system. It was challenged in the Madras High Court. While delivering the verdict, Justices S. Rajeswaran and Tmt. K.P.K. Vasuki said, “The intention of Samacheer Kalvi is clear. A study team consisting of best experts studied in detail and recommended implementation of Samacheer Kalvi. The recommendations of the committee cannot be easily ignored. Besides, while already incurring huge expenditure, is it necessary to further expend more? The Advocate General should give proper counsels to the government.”

When the Tamil Nadu government went on further appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgement of the Madras High Court, Justices P.S.Chowhan and Swanthira Kumar in their order said, “Samacheer Kalvi brought for classes one and six last year should be continued to be implemented. If it is stopped in between there will be confusion. Samacheer Kalvi should also be implemented this year itself for classes 2 to 5 and 7 to 10. If there were any shortcomings in that syllabi, a committee of experts could be set up and that committee to file its report within two weeks to the Madras High Court. Considering importance of this case the High Court should hear it on day-to-day basis and deliver judgement within a week.”

According to this order ADMK government set up a committee of educationists. It was widely held that only those who were opposed Samacheer Kalvi found place in that committee. Without bothering all those things, the rulers prepared a report through that committee itself and filed that report in the High Court. The Chief Justice and another judge of the Madras High Court in their order explained in detail about the report of the committee and said, “We have no hesitation to hold that the State has exceeded in its powers in bringing the Amending Act to postpone an enactment which has already come into force. Text books required for other classes besides classes one and six had already been printed and considerable amount of work have been completed. They have also been uploaded on the website. At this stage bringing amendment to the Samacheer Kalvi Act, would affect the interests of students. Hence the amendment brought by Tamil Nadu government amending that Act is not valid. We hold them null and void. The text books for Samacheer Kalvi should be immediately distributed to the students. Hence in the interest of future of the students and the interest of the country we hope the State government would immediately take action to implement Samacheer Kalvi.”

Even after this, without respecting the High Court order and ignoring the request of the all parties in Tamil Nadu persuading the Tamil Nadu government not to go on further appeal to the Supreme Court and implement the order of the High Court, the Tamil Nadu government went to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court in its interim report refused to give interim stay to the Madras High Court order and told the government to distribute Samacheer Kalvi text books before August 2. Even after five days of this order, the Tamil Nadu government did not start the work of distributing text books to students.  Instead the counsel for Tamil Nadu government told the Supreme Court that there was no possibility for implementing Samacheer Kalvi during this year itself; it was very clear that the Tamil Nadu government was not at all bothered about the condition of the students of Tamil Nadu. Even after 2 months of reopening of schools the students were not aware of the text books that they were going to study during this year and the parents also were agonized. As the Tamil Nadu government, unbothered about all these and not respecting the orders of the courts and not heeding to the opinions of all party leaders, was adamantly sticking on its stand.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court on Aug. 9 directed the Tamil Nadu government to implement Samacheer Kalvi for classes 2 to 5 and 7 to 10 in ten days.

A three-Judge Bench of Justice J.M. Panchal, Justice Deepak Misra and Justice B.S. Chauhan dismissed a batch of appeals filed by the Tamil Nadu government and on behalf of association of matriculation schools in support of the State challenging the Madras High Court judgment.

The Bench upheld the High Court’s decision declaring unconstitutional the amendment made to the Tamil Nadu Uniform System of School Education Act to defer implementation of the USSE and gave 25 reasons why the impugned judgment should be sustained.

Jayalalitha never had the courage and determination to face the cases filed against her as much back as more than 16 years and came out clean. In judicial parlance her name has come to be associated with notoriety for protracting cases by going on appeals after appeals on flimsy grounds to higher courts, seeking adjournments after adjournments (more than 130 in Bangalore Special court alone in the Disproportionate Assets case ) winning for her the title ‘ Queen of adjournments’ (Vaaidha Rani), misusing State machinery to manipulate charges against her (like ordering the DVAC to investigate in the Assets case every time she returns to power) – all with the fond hope of diluting the severity of the charges against her and escaping conviction. The High Court and Supreme Court had repeatedly pulled her up for her delaying tactics and misuse of power. But she remains unmoved and unrepentant.

In Judicial parlance, Jayalalitha’s name is synonymous to and identified with protracting cases against her by hook or by crook. Now she being at the helm, the State government is gaining notoriety for seeking repeated adjournments and appeals after appeals in cases against it. As is the CM, so is the Regime!