Latest News
Back
Document:
Anti - Sterlite Protest
The Madras High Court recently came to the aid of a law graduate who was denied enrolment as an advocate on account of 85 cases lodged against him for his alleged involvement in various protests, including public demonstrations for the closure of Vedanta's Sterlite Copper plant in Thoothukudi (K Siva v. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry and ors .
A Bench of Justices M Duraiswamy and Murali Shankar also took the opportunity to emphasize that there is a "colossal difference between complaining that a person is acting against the government and that person is protesting the policies of the government."
Referring to a demonstration in which the law graduate allegedly participated without prior permission and whereby protest was raised against a government ban on the beef sale, the Court said:
The right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peaceably and without arms are fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) and (b) of the Constitution of India ... every citizen is having the right to comment on the policies of Governments and to have their own views with respect to such policies.
Referring to another protest wherein slogans were raised not to crush anti-Sterlite protests and whereby a road roko was allegedly created, the Court added:
It pointed out that the protest or demonstration organized by the group of students including the petitioner was actually towards the fulfilment of their fundamental duty under Article 48 A of the Constitution of India. It is not the case of the Police that the petitioner and other students had indulged in any violent activities at that time.
The Court was dealing with a petition moved by K Siva, a law graduate (petitioner) who was aggrieved after he was denied enrolment as an advocate by the State Bar Council.
The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry had informed the petitioner that it would not enroll him as an advocate without a court direction, the Bench was told.
This was on account of finding that 85 criminal cases were lodged against the petitioner between 2017 and 2019 following a police verification report. In this regard, the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli had submitted a report stating that since the petitioner had 85 cases against him and since he was a person "acting against the government", no recommendation would be given on his conduct.
The High Court expressed shock at the sheer number of cases lodged against the petitioner. On a closer look, the Court found that the bulk of those cases were filed with respect to anti-Sterlite protests that took place on May 22, 2018.
The court observed on a cursory look at the particulars of the cases registered against the petitioner, we were shocked to notice that as many as 85 criminal cases came to be registered against the petitioner. But a close perusal of the same would reveal that 81 cases out of 85 cases, came to be registered for the incidents alleged to have been occurred on May 22, 2018.
It went on to question how the petitioner has been made an accused with respect to incidents that took place at various locations on the same day.
The court asked that in the absence of any charge for criminal conspiracy, is it possible for a person to be present and involved in the commission of offences at 88 various places on the same day?
The Court also noted that the petitioner's name was missing from the final reports as well as the several FIRs lodged over anti-Sterlite protests.
The court said that the petitioner's name does not find a place in any of the above said 88 FIRs registered for the incidents that allegedly occurred on 22.05.2018. Though the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District, in his status report, has shown the rank of the petitioner in those cases, they have not furnished any particulars as to how and on what basis, the petitioner was implicated in the above 88 cases.
Added to this, the Court noted that the petitioner's name does not find a place in any of the charge sheets filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to whom the investigation of cases pertaining to anti-Sterlite protests and the death of thirteen protesters were transferred.
Against this backdrop, the Court remarked that it was "at a loss to understand" how the Bar Council authorities have declined to give the petitioner enrollment without getting any report from the CBI or resorting to any further inquiry.
Commenting further that there was no whisper of any allegation that the petitioner was involved in any heinous crime or anti-national or anti-social activities, the Court proceeded to order that he be enrolled in the next enrolment session.
The court said that Court has no hesitation to hold that the enrollment of the petitioner as an Advocate is unjustly being denied to the petitioner and therefore, necessary directions are to be issued to respondents 1 and 2 to enrol the petitioner as an Advocate on the Roll of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
Document:
