The Madras High Court on Friday kept in abeyance till Wednesday an order passed by it on Thursday directing the police not to allow either pro- or anti-CAA protesters to block a public road in Tiruppur much to the inconvenience of schoolchildren and other users of the road.
A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Krishnan Ramasamy took the decision after a battery of senior counsel, representing a host of anti-CAA protesters, informed the judges about the antecedents of a litigant on whose petition the orders were passed on Thursday and his “ill intentions.”
Senior counsel R. Vagai said the litigant K. Gopinath, an advocate and president of Hindu Munnetra Kazhagam (HMK), had not conformed to the court’s PIL rules which require every litigant to disclose that he/she was aware of similar petitions pending in the court.
She claimed that he had suppressed the fact that many other similar cases were pending in the court.
Also stating that his antecedents were questionable, she said his outfit HMK had reportedly announced a bounty of ₹1 crore for Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi leader Thol. Thirumavalan’s head for the latter’s remarks against Hindu temples.
The senior counsel urged the court to hear all stakeholders before passing any orders on protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act of 2019 and to keep its order in abeyance till then.
Another designated senior counsel M. Ajmal Khan too contended that courts should not entertain litigations aimed at stifling democratic dissent.
A group of other advocates, including N.G.R. Prasad, Sudha Ramalingam, T. Mohan, B. Poongkuzhali and Raja Mohammed, urged the court to permit them to make their representations on behalf of impleading petitioners who included Henri Tiphagne of People’s Watch, a human rights organisation based in Madurai.
The lawyers said the orders passed by the court on Thursday had been used by the police in Madurai and other districts across the State to forcibly disperse even those who had been protesting peacefully.
Agreeing to hear all lawyers at length on Wednesday, along with other PIL petitions that had been filed in the court seeking a direction to curtail unauthorised protests being held in various parts of the State, the judges said their Thursday’s order should not be given effect to by the police till then.
Police free to act
However, at the instance of the State government pleader V. Jayaprakash Narayanan, the judges clarified that irrespective of the court order having been kept in abeyance, the police were at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.
“We are of the view that in as much as a larger issue is involved, it would be appropriate to take up the matter and pass a detailed order touching upon the right to indulge in protest and to occupy a place chosen by the protesters sans permission as against the interest of the general public,” the judges added.
