E-Paper
Supreme Court seeks Tamil Nadu government’s reply on plea over remarks on justice Swaminathan
The Supreme Court has asked Tamil Nadu to respond to a petition about inaction against defamatory remarks made against Judge GR Swaminathan.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought the response of the Tamil Nadu government on a petition alleging inaction by the state to act on complaints against persons making defamatory remarks against Madras high court judge justice GR Swaminathan after he permitted lighting the Karthigai Deepam on a sacred Hindu hill temple in Madurai.
A bench of justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale passed the order while hearing a petition filed by advocate GS Mani. Appearing in person, Mani alleged that despite representations sent to the state officials and police, no action was taken against protestors who gathered inside the high court premises making derogatory remarks against the judge.
Issuing notice on the petition, the bench asked advocate Sabarish Subramaian to file a status report with regard to the steps taken on the representation received from Mani in December last year.
Mani said that the protestors had the backing of the ruling party in the state - Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), which had opposed the order of December 1 passed by justice Swaminathan allowing the Deepathon (lamp) atop Madurai’s Thiruparankundram Lord Murugan Temple situated on a hill to be lit.
Following this order, the authorities had imposed prohibitory orders under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) citing apprehension of law and order situation due to a dargah in close proximity to the temple. A contempt petition came to be filed on which justice Swaminathan quashed the prohibitory order and summoned chief secretary and a top police official. On January 6, the order passed by justice Swaminathan was upheld by a division bench.
Mani told the court that despite the presence of police, the protestors were not stopped. The state counsel told the court that action has been taken by the state. He informed the court that the police had contacted the social media intermediaries to preserve the objectionable posts and sought time to file a response. The matter will now be heard on February 2.
