Date:14/11/2008 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2008/11/14/stories/2008111461380800.htm

Tamil Nadu

PIL plea alleges police failure

K.T.Sangameswaran

“Reporting of violence by media resulted in its spread”

CHENNAI: “This court respects both the freedom of the press and freedom of electronic media, but the said freedom must be exercised with due caution and in public interest,” observed the First Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Chief Justice A.K.Ganguly and Justice F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla, on Thursday.

It was passing interim orders on a public interest litigation petition filed by K.Balu, advocate and president of the Advocates Forum for Social Justice.

The petitioner submitted that the situation in the law college here was tense for the past 10 days. The dispute between students was known to college authorities and the police. At the time of incident, sufficient police force had been deployed. It was unfortunate that the incidents took place in the presence of police personnel deployed at the main gate of the institution. The police had failed miserably in discharging their duty to protect the lives of students.

He also said the reporting of the “brutal incidents/acts of violence” by the press and electronic media resulted in violence spreading in the State. It was just and necessary that all further publication of the violence by the press and electronic media needed to be stopped immediately. Freedom of speech and expression was subject to reasonable restrictions. He sought a direction to authorities for taking suitable action against police personnel deployed at the college on Wednesday.

The Government Pleader (GP) gave details of the steps taken by the government after the incident. In view of this, the Bench said, it could not be said the government had not taken action in the matter. It directed the GP to file an affidavit indicating the government’s stand and the steps taken by November 17.

As regards the prayer seeking interim direction for restraining the press and electronic media from publishing, broadcasting or spreading the incidence of violence, the Bench said it was not possible for the court to pass such an interim order in view of the fact that neither the press nor the electronic media had been impleaded in the writ petition.

Though the court was not passing any interim direction, the observation that the court expected both the press and electronic media would act under self restraint should be followed in the spirit in which it had been made, the Bench said. The matter has been posted for November 18.