Saturday, May 11, 2002
Saturday, May 11, 2002 |
| Southern States | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Southern States
-
Tamil Nadu
By Our Special Correspondent
The Chief Minister, Jayalalithaa, allayed the anxiety that the legislation could deny the undertrials an opportunity to voice before court any complaint of police ill-treatment. The videoconferencing, she said, allowed the magistrate to have full view of the undertrial and, if necessary, the entire room where the undertrial and the police were present. The Chief Minister clarified that the Bill was essentially meant to prevent ``dangerous criminals'' from escaping. There was also a provision for magistrates going to the prisons to order remand extension. Videoconferencing was not going to be exclusively adopted, and other methods of remand extension would continue. When E. Pugazhendi (DMK) wondered whether videoconferencing was worth the huge expenditure involved, Ms. Jayalalithaa said it would cost only Rs. 9 crores. This was not a huge amount. Besides, the Government would save on allowances for the police personnel accompanying the undertrials to court. Moreover, the State only had limited police manpower at its disposal. As optical fibres were to be used, there would be no technical snag, she said. As this was a progressive scheme, all members should extend support. When the DMK deputy leader, Durai Murugan, claimed that during videoconferencing the police could intimidate the undertrials without attracting the attention of the magistrate, Ms. Jayalalithaa said this was not possible as full view could be provided to him. When C. Gnanasekaran (TMC) insisted that the Bill was violative of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Central Act, she said the High Court had agreed to its provisions. In any case, the passing of the Bill would not immediately bring the provisions into force. The Bill would have to get the Governor's assent, and then the President's assent as it related to a subject in the Concurrent List. If the member thought that the Bill was bad in the law, he could challenge it. Ms. Jayalalithaa also pointed out that videoconferencing was in operation in Andhra Pradesh. The TMC leader, S.R. Balasubramaniam, said it might not be possible to find out whether the undertrial was speaking under duress. The Chief Minister, however, said it was possible for the police to intimidate undertrials under the conventional method of remand extension too. Moreover, the Bill was meant to provide videoconferencing only for remand extension and not for trial. Lawyers could also be present during remand extension through videoconferencing. K. Maheswari (Congresss) said the Government's intentions might be good, but the Bill could violate the principle of natural justice for the detenus. G. Palanichamy (CPI) said if the State came up with the Bill to prevent the escape of prisoners in transit, then there were cases of jail escape too. Vel Murugan (PMK) and Nenmaran (CPI-M) also opposed the Bill. K.N. Lakshmanan (BJP), however, welcomed it, saying Muslim extremists such as Basha gave interviews to the media whenever they were brought for remand extension, and these acts could be prevented through videoconferencing. Such extremists were projected as heroes, he said. The Chief Minister nodded approvingly. The Law Minister, D. Jayakumar, said the legislation would not affect the basic rights of prisoners.
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | Home |
Copyright © 2002, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|