Contempt charges to be framed against VS

By Our Staff Reporter

KOCHI, OCT. 12. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court today decided to frame contempt of court charges against Mr. V. S. Achuthanandan, former LDF convener and now Leader of the Opposition, and Mr. K. Pankajakshan, national general secretary of the RSP, as it found that they had prima facie disobeyed the guidelines and directives on demonstrations and processions issued by a Full Bench of the High Court.

The Bench comprising Mr. Justice P. K. Balasubramanian and Mr. Justice C. N. Ramachandran Nair directed them to appear in person before the Court on October 31 when it will frame the contempt charges against them.

The court observed that `by not seeking to obey these directives in letter and spirit,' they had prima facie `left themselves open' to the framing of contempt charges.

The contempt petition was filed by Mr. Thariyan Joseph, a High Court lawyer. According to him, Mr. Pankajakshan had taken out a procession in connection with the national convention of the RSP in Kollam on February 14, 1999, violating the Full Bench's guidelines on procession and demonstrations.

Mr. Justice K. G. Balakrishnan, former Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court who was also then functioning as the acting Governor of Gujarat and now Supreme Court Judge, could not travel from Thiruvananthapuram to Ernakulam because of the procession. Mr. Achuthanandan who led a procession in connection with the holding of a hartal in Thiruvananthapuram on February 9, 1999, had also flouted the High Court's guidelines.

The then Kollam District Collector, the then Kollam Superintendent of Police and other police officers had also been accused of committing contempt of court. The Court, however, decided not to frame contempt of court charges against them as it felt that they had performed their duties and did not attempt to violate the guidelines or abet others to violate the same. The Bench, while deciding to frame charges against the two political leaders, observed that they had not tendered any apology after admitting that they had committed contempt of court. They had not `responded to their duties.'

The court dismissed the contention of the political leaders that the contempt charges did not lie against them as it had not been initiated within one year from the date of incident as stipulated under Section 20 of the Contempt of Court Act. The arguments of the leaders that it was their followers who had violated the guidelines, and therefore, they could not be accused of disobeying the guidelines were dismissed by the Bench. Rejecting the contentions, the Bench pointed out that the contempt of court proceedings initiated by the petitioner was well within one year of the date of commission of the act.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Southern States
Previous : WB-aided road project to cover 2,263 km.
Next     : Futures trading in coconut oil, copra soon