The following news item was published in ‘The Hindu’ daily on January 30, 1964:-
“Sanjiva Reddi to resign
Mr. N. Sanjiva Reddi on January 29 announced that he had decided to vacate office as Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh in view of the remarks made by the Supreme Court in the Kurnool road transport nationalisation case and he had accordingly written to the Congress President, Mr. Kamaraj, to permit him to resign. This announcement was made by the Chief Minister at a hurriedly called Press Conference after his return from Kurnool, where he had been on a tour. The Chief Minister said he did not wish to trouble the Prime Minister and, therefore, had requested Mr. Kamaraj to consult Mr. Nehru and give a decision”.
That was in those days when a Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh was so sensitive to a innocuous remark passed by the Supreme Court on the government led by him and owning responsibility for that he offered to resign the post.
But now how is the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, against the government led by her the Supreme Court and High Courts of not only Madras but also Karnataka too pulled up and passed strictures not just once or twice but several times in the last two and a half years of her regime? To cite a few,
The very first acts of Jayalalitha after she assumed power in May 2011 received derisive observations, censures of the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court repeatedly.
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, 2011 staying until further orders the State government’s decision to shift the Anna Centenary Library in Kotturpuram in Chennai. When the matter came up on Dec.5, no counter affidavit was filed by the government side. The then Advocate General A.Navaneethakrishnan 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 was indeed flabbergasting. Unless the government’s position was very weak or the decision was taken in haphazard manner without considering implications and hence indefensible. There after the case was not pursued by the government and the High Court later issued strict directives to the government on July 2012 not to rent out the premises for anything else than academic purposes.
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 2011 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.
Finally, the Supreme Court on Nov 12,2013 questioned the Madras High Court for disposing of the petitions relating to the sacking of 13,000 Makkal Nala Paniyalargal (welfare workers) accepting the compromise arrived at between the union office-bearer and the Tamil Nadu Government. A Bench of Justices Anil R. Dave and Dipak Misra, after hearing senior counsel T.R. Andhyarujina for the petitioners and senior counsel Rakesh Diwedi for the State, set aside the compromise order and asked the High Court to take up the matter afresh and decide the question of termination of the workers on merits in six months.
The appeal was filed by the Tamil Nadu Makkal Nala Paniyalargal Munnetra Sangam against a judgment of the Madras High Court disposing of the appeal accepting a compromise entered into by the erstwhile general secretary with the State government to pay five months salary to the terminated workers. On behalf of the sangam, it was submitted that 13,000 welfare workers were sacked in November 2011 by the ADMK government and the High Court single judge had recorded a finding that the dismissal was for political reasons. It said the workers were appointed in 1989 pursuant to a scheme formulated by the then government to help educated unemployed by prescribing tenth standard as the educational qualification for the post. They were removed when the ADMK government came to power, again re-employed then sacked and again re-employed. The sangam said the High Court ought not to have accepted the compromise entered into by the erstwhile secretary of the sangam Palani. It also drew the court’s attention to an order passed by the present government to recruit ADMK party men for the same posts. The sangam also said after the impugned judgment 15 workers had committed suicide. These workers had been robbed of their, tenure, their aspirations and future. They had become the helpless victims of certain swift moves on the political chess board.
The sangam said “The sole reason is that whenever the ADMK comes to power the poor workers become a playful toy in its hands and are kicked out from the jobs as it is the other political party (DMK) who had conceived and given employment to unemployed youths numbering to 13000. Therefore these workers have been victims of political chess board for the past 23 years and the present government disbanded their services. The sangam prayed for a direction to quash the April 26, 2012, judgment and the order dismissing the review petition.
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, 2011. 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, 2011 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.
The Madras High Court on Jan4, 2012 once again questioned the Tamil Nadu Government why it had not arrested four policemen, who were allegedly involved in the rape of four Irula tribal women at Thirukovilur in Villupuram district of the state in November last.
The first bench comprising Chief Justice M Y Eqbal and Mr Justice T S Sivagnanam posed the question when a Public Interest Litigation(PIL) filed by advocate P Pugalenthi seeking CBI probe into the alleged incident of rape came up for hearing today. The bench warned that it would be constrained to pass orders if the state government failed to take action against the four policemen, attached to the Thirukovilur Poilce station in Villupuram district. After Government pleader assured the court that the government would take action and get back to the court in two weeks, the bench adjourned the case to two weeks. When the PIL came up for hearing early December last, the bench took serious exception and had asked why the Police personnel responsible for the November 22 incident were not arrested.
In recent times, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) on Feb 4, 2013 directed the State government to implement the provisions of the Child Protection Act to prevent children from being engaged in beggary and file an action taken report.
The Madras High Court bench in Madurai on Sep 5,2013 pulled up the officials of the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation for delaying quality tests and cheating the Government. Justice N Kirubakaran said the officials were cheating the government using loop holes in the system and directed the food and cooperative department secretary to crack his whip on such corrupt staff and file an Action Taken Report.
Criticising the Collectors of Villupuram and Salem for failing to implement court orders, the Madras High Court on July 12, 2013 issued notice asking them to show cause as to why suo motu action for contempt should not be initiated against them for their wilful disobedience. It also ordered them to explain before July 27 why they did not implement the court orders.
Madras High Court Sep 16, 2013 pulled up Tamil Nadu Teachers Recruitment Board for its contention that the 47 mistakes in a 150 type objective paper was a printing error, saying that if the TRB chairman was not able to ensure correctness of questions, “he is unfit to be chairman.”
Justice S Nagamuthu said it did not make any difference to students whether a printer made the mistakes or the one who had set it. It was not fair to put the blame on others for such mistakes, he said.
Madras high court on Nov 13, 2013 pulled up the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) for violating reservation rules laid down by the Supreme Court in appointments for Group-I services. The High Court bench in Madurai told TNPSC secretary M Vijayakumar that it would stay the appointments if it didn’t follow the reservation rules set out by the apex court.
In all the cases filed against misuse of preventive custody laws like the Goondas Act against political rivals by the ADMK regime, the courts quashed the orders of the government and released the detained making harsh observations against the government. For instance they invoked Goondas Act to keep in prison such a senior political leader and former Minister late Veerapandi Arumugam and went on appeal up to the Supreme Court challenging the orders of lower courts quashing the government order but failed. The extremely vindictive attitude of this regime was observed in the Supreme Court turning down their appeal against the order of the lower court and upheld by the High Court dispensing with the appearance of an opposition leader in the court in a defamation case.
But Jayalalitha is not Sanjiva Reddy to be sensitive to even innocuous remarks of courts but is personally ‘seasoned’ in judicial observations, censures and strictures passed by various courts in criminal cases against her. So the regime led by an insensitive Chief Minister is ought to be insensitive to court observations and censures! r
No comments:
Post a Comment