Court order on pleas against ‘illegal’ detention of MLAs reserved
The Madras high court on Monday reserved orders on habeas corpus pleas relating to alleged illegal detention of two MLAs at a resort where legislators supporting AIADMK general secretary VK Sasikala are housed.india Updated: Feb 13, 2017 16:37 IST
The Madras high court on Monday reserved orders on habeas corpus pleas relating to alleged illegal detention of two MLAs at a resort where legislators supporting AIADMK general secretary VK Sasikala are housed.
After hearing arguments of public prosecutor Rajarathinam and K Balu, counsel for MLA T Ramachandran, a division bench of Justice M Jaichandren and Justice T Mathivanan reserved orders on the pleas seeking to trace and set at liberty Ramachandran and Geetha.
During arguments, the public prosecutor submitted before the court the statements of the two MLAs in their own handwriting, stating that they have not been illegally detained.
Balu submitted that the only legal remedy in habeas corpus is that the person, who is illegally detained, has to be ordered to be produced in person before the court and mere statements cannot be taken into account by the court.
Objecting to this, the public prosecutor submitted that it was only on the counsel’s suggestion the superintendent of police at Kancheepuram had set up a team, comprising an additional deputy superintendent of police (ADSP), four inspectors, two sub-inspectors and two revenue officials in the rank of tehsildhars to inspect the resort and record their statements.
The public prosecutor submitted that statements of not only the two MLAs but also those of another 119 MLAs were recorded. The team had presented a questionnaire to the MLAs and requested them to fill it on their own.
“We have also those statements but as the HCPs is confined to only these two MLAs, I am submitting their statements. We are ready to submit the other statements, if the court directs,” he said.
Objecting to the counsel’s contention, the public prosecutor said the counsel is now raising objections, saying he wants appointment of an amicus curiae or a district judge to personally go and inspect the resort and file a report.
The public prosecutor wanted to know from whom he has to get instructions on the matter.
The bench said, “The government is there, the government is functioning. Then how can you say from whom you have to get instructions.”
On February 10, a division bench had sought the state government’s response to allegations that AIADMK MLAs were being illegally detained at the resort and 20 of them were on a fast.