Recalling that he had raised the same questions raised by the Madras High Court on the appointment of one-man commission headed by retired High Court judge Justice R. Reghupathy to enquire the Maulivakkam building collapse and disaster, DMK President Kalaignar asked the ADMK regime what would be reply of it to the questions raised by the High Court now.
Replying to a question on the observations of the first bench of the Madras High Court headed by Chief Justice S.K.Kaul being the same as those he had raised on July 5, Kalaignar said that he had said in detail about the building collapse and the actions of the government in his epistle at the end of which he alleged that “the appointment of Justice R. Reghupathy as the one-man commission of inquiry was eyewash, as the retired judge had already headed many panels. Justice Reghupathy replaced Justice Thangaraj, appointed to probe the alleged violations in the construction of the new Secretariat. Further, Justice Reghupathy is president of the Tamil Nadu Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and member of the Advisory Board, constituted under the National Security Act, 1980, and the Goondas Act. It is clear from all these facts that this enquiry is motivated and eyewash”. The same opinion has been conveyed by the High Court Chief Justice also. Though most of dailies here have not published the report ‘The Times of India’ published on the first page itself asking ““Is he a ‘superhero’ and the only competent person to juggle around several sensitive assignments simultaneously?” The Madras High Court wondered as to how an ex-judge of the court, R Reghupathy, was named to probe the June 28 Moulivakkam building collapse, while his hands are already full with other responsibilities such as investigating the new secretariat issue and heading the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as well as the statutory board to review Goondas Act detentions.”
Kalaignar said that he “had raised these questions even when Justice Reghupathy was appoined as the one man commission. But Tamil Nadu government did not provide any reply. But the Chief Justice Bench of the High Court has raised these questions. What is the reply of the TN government? If the same question was raised by a High Court judge during the DMK rule, what would have Jayalalitha done? Would not she issue a statement that the ‘minority government’ should resign within 24 hours? What will she do now?” Kalaignar asked.
Replying to a question on the observations of the first bench of the Madras High Court headed by Chief Justice S.K.Kaul being the same as those he had raised on July 5, Kalaignar said that he had said in detail about the building collapse and the actions of the government in his epistle at the end of which he alleged that “the appointment of Justice R. Reghupathy as the one-man commission of inquiry was eyewash, as the retired judge had already headed many panels. Justice Reghupathy replaced Justice Thangaraj, appointed to probe the alleged violations in the construction of the new Secretariat. Further, Justice Reghupathy is president of the Tamil Nadu Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and member of the Advisory Board, constituted under the National Security Act, 1980, and the Goondas Act. It is clear from all these facts that this enquiry is motivated and eyewash”. The same opinion has been conveyed by the High Court Chief Justice also. Though most of dailies here have not published the report ‘The Times of India’ published on the first page itself asking ““Is he a ‘superhero’ and the only competent person to juggle around several sensitive assignments simultaneously?” The Madras High Court wondered as to how an ex-judge of the court, R Reghupathy, was named to probe the June 28 Moulivakkam building collapse, while his hands are already full with other responsibilities such as investigating the new secretariat issue and heading the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as well as the statutory board to review Goondas Act detentions.”
Kalaignar said that he “had raised these questions even when Justice Reghupathy was appoined as the one man commission. But Tamil Nadu government did not provide any reply. But the Chief Justice Bench of the High Court has raised these questions. What is the reply of the TN government? If the same question was raised by a High Court judge during the DMK rule, what would have Jayalalitha done? Would not she issue a statement that the ‘minority government’ should resign within 24 hours? What will she do now?” Kalaignar asked.
No comments:
Post a Comment