All India Anna Dravida Munmnetra ... vs L.K.Tripathi & Ors

2. Background facts:

2.2 The petitioner challenged the afore-mentioned resolution in Writ Petition No.31435 of 2007 filed before Madras High Court and prayed that the call given by the political parties for organizing bandh in the State of Tamil Nadu either on 1.10.2007 or any other day may be declared as violative of Articles 19 and 21 and the Directive Principles of the State Policy and fundamental duties embodied and enumerated in the Constitution of India. Shri Subramania Swamy of Janta Party, Shri K.R. Ramaswamy @ Traffic Ramaswamy (founder Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Social Workers Association, Chennai) and Shri R. Balasubramanian also filed Writ Petition Nos.31478, 31462 and 31631 of 2007 with similar prayers. 2.3 Along with the writ petition, the petitioner filed two miscellaneous petitions with the prayer that a direction be issued to Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam represented by its President M. Karunanidhi (Respondent No.4 in the contempt petition) to deposit a sum of Rs.100 crore with the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu on or before 28.9.2007 which could be utilized to compensate the damage caused to the general public and the five political parties be restrained from proceeding with the call for bandh in the State in terms of resolution dated 24.9.2007. 2.4 After hearing counsel for the parties, the High Court admitted the writ petitions and issued the following directions to the Chief Secretary, Director General of Police, District Collectors and other officers of the State:

2.6 Even before filing of writ petition by the petitioner, the then Chief Secretary of the State - Shri L.K. Tripathi (respondent no.1 herein) directed that the concerned officers be asked to take steps necessary for maintaining essential services and for providing protection to important offices and establishments apart from markets and business places. The instructions given by the Chief Secretary were circulated vide telefax No.SR.II/50641/2007 dated 27.9.2007, the relevant portions of which are extracted below:-

2.7 On coming to know of this Court's order through electronic media, respondent No.1 directed that telephonic instructions be given to all the Collectors to convene meetings with the respective Superintendents of Police for ensuring that law and order and public tranquility are maintained.

4. In paragraph 7 of the reply affidavit filed by him, respondent no.1 has averred that after telecast of the news about the restraint order passed by the Court, telephonic instructions were issued to the District Collectors to maintain law and order and public peace. In para 8 of the affidavit, respondent no.1 has averred that immediately on receipt of the Court's order, a copy thereof was sent to respondent no.2 with suitable instructions to take necessary action and within the available time the police force was mobilized and bandobust was provided to all vital installations, State and Central Government offices, educational institutions, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation depots, bus stands, railway stations, airports, markets, places of worship, hospitals, important junctions, business areas and other places where people used to congregate and bandobust was also provided to the industrial establishments for their smooth functioning and pickets were posted at all sensitive places to avert law and order problems. According to respondent No.1, effective patrols and mobiles were organized for ensuring free flow of traffic in the State and open line patrols were deputed for keeping watch on the railway tracks; all the courts including the Madras High Court were given sufficient protection; vehicle checks were organized to prevent the movement of anti-social elements and trouble mongers and rowdy elements were detained under preventive measures. Respondent No.1 has claimed that on 1.10.2007 all the Courts functioned normally and movement of trains and other essential services were maintained without any obstruction. As regards transport services, respondent no.1 has averred that less number of Government transport services operated in the early morning but with the passage of time around 2749 routes were made operational.

7. Respondent No.4, Shri M. Karunanidhi, has come up with the plea that initially he was advised to adopt the counter affidavits of respondent nos.1 and 2 and a statement to that effect was made before the Court on 4.8.2008 by the advocate representing the State of Tamil Nadu but, later on, he decided to file a separate counter affidavit. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit, respondent no.4 has given the background in which decision was taken by Democratic Progressive Alliance comprising major political parties in Tamil Nadu to demonstrate their concern on the delay in implementation of Sethu Samudram Project by observing cessation of work between 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on 1.10.2007. Respondent No.4 has then averred that on the basis of reports appearing in the TV news channels and after verifying the facts from counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3 in the special leave petition, he gave a call at about 1.30 p.m. for withdrawal of resolution dated 24.9.2007 and this was conveyed to the concerned political parties. According to respondent no.3, instructions were given to the government officials to carry out the Court's order and ensure that the bandh did not take place on 1.10.2007 and the fast undertaken by political parties should not, in any way, affect the general public or hinder their routine life. For the sake of convenience, paragraph 7 of the affidavit of respondent no.4 is reproduced below:-

"f. That I submit therefore that the original tape containing the speech of Mr. T.R. Baalu is not available.

Where the maker is unable to identify the voice, strict proof will be required to determine whether or not it was the voice of the alleged speaker.

2. The accuracy of the tape-recorded statement must be proved by the maker of the record by satisfactory evidence: direct or circumstantial.

3. Possibility of tampering with, or erasure of any part of, the tape-recorded statement must be totally excluded.

Dicey, in his Law of the Constitution, (10th Edn., pp.193-94) said:

42. Insofar as respondent no.6 is concerned, charge cannot be framed against him with reference to Section 2(c) of 1971 Act because the petitioners have not produced any legally admissible evidence to prove the contents of the speech allegedly made by the said respondent. The judgments in Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose (supra) and E.M. Sankaran Namboodripad v. T. Narayanan Nambiar (supra) do not have any bearing on this case and, therefore, we do not consider it necessary to deal with the same.

43. In the result, the contempt petitions are dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.