TN failure to provide security unpardonable: SC

By T. Padmanabha Rao

NEW DELHI, OCT. 19. The Supreme Court today asked the Tamil Nadu Government what prevented its posting two policemen to provide security at Mr. Rajkumar's residence in Gajanur in Erode district when State authorities were informed by the Karnataka police over a year ago, of the threat of the actor being kidnapped by the forest brigand Veerappan. This was ``unpardonable'', a Bench observed.

Providing security to such an important person had nothing to do with his wanting security or not, the Bench said.

The Bench also asked what guarantee was there of Mr. Rajkumar being set free on the release of 51 TADA detenus (by Karnataka) and 5 detenus (by Tamil Nadu). The brigand had demanded the release of the TADA detenus.

The Bench observed that all concerned (both in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu) had been acting out of `pure fear' and reacting with `panic' from the beginning.

The Bench comprising Mr. Justice S.P. Bharucha, Mr. Justice D.P. Mohapatra and Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, was hearing an appeal and related writ petitions in the `Veerappan-associates accused release case'.

Adverting to the impugned order passed by the Mysore Designated Court giving `consent' to the public prosecutor for withdrawal of TADA charges against 51 Veerappan associates, the Bench just observed that ``it is terrible''.

``Please consider consequences of adverse decision'' (on Section 321 of the CrPC - withdrawal of TADA charges) at the moment and ``please consider your option,'' the Bench observed.

As far as the executive was concerned in this regard, ``the material is not before us,'' the Bench said and observed that ``if something happens to Rajkumar the entire blame will be on the two States (for the last 10 years)''.

The Bench also observed that when the two governments ``had failed to nab Veerappan, why should not one think that the whole kidnap drama was a ploy to help Veerappan''.

If a government said ``it cannot control mob violence, then it should pack up and go,'' the Bench said.

Mr. V.R. Reddy, senior counsel appearing for Tamil Nadu submitted that there was no prior information of Mr. Rajkumar's arrival and stay at his farmhouse in Gajanur on July 28. It was not his planned visit. As the police were busy in connection with tea plantation workers' agitation in a nearby area, the thought (security of Rajkumar) did not occur to them.

Counsel said that, in view of three major operations conducted by the State police task force during February 1999 and June 2000 the strength of the Veerappan gang had been considerably reduced. He also said the secessionist elements were a ``spent force''.

Observing that it (the court) had the ``benefit of seeing things without wool over its eyes'' (in the matter of `withdrawal' of TADA charges against the Veerappan-associates for securing the release of the hostages), the Bench said it ``is all part of pre- arranged package''. ``We regard this very serious and all concerned were acting in a knee-jerk reaction,'' the Bench said.

The Bench queried when both the Chief Ministers of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka met to consider the `demands' of Veerappan and agreed or responded.

This was very relevant, because even before the emissary Mr. R.R Gopal returned (after meeting Veerappan), some of the demands had been conceded by Karnataka, the Bench observed. The ``idea'' was ``what time you had to consider the demands''.

The Bench observed that ``if there is an association of Veerappan with some people (secessionist elements) in that terrain coupled with their activities - smuggling, poaching, etc, who knows what plan would be hatched, what arms would be procured and what training would be imparted?'' This was ``something really dangerous'' and the three judges (on the Bench) were ``concerned as the individual citizens of the country over this.''

A lethal combination of Veerappan with secessionists did not appear to have received the attention of the authority concerned, the Bench observed. The approach was that ''somehow we should get the release of Mr. Rajkumar.``

The Bench said it was not informed of the material before the public prosecutor concerned when he sought the withdrawal of the ``TADA charges''.

Earlier, Messers Harish N. Salve and K. Parasaran, senior counsel for Karnataka, concluded their submissions.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Front Page
Next     : Krishna okayed Nedumaran: Karunanidhi