|
Freedom and POTA
 When MDMK chief Vaiko's petition challenging
Section 21 of POTA was dismissed by the Supreme Court, the fate of the politician was in question and
doubt was raised in everyone's mind as to whether the
MDMK parliamentarian will continue to be in detention. But, in fact, the verdict was in favour of Vaiko and other politicians who have been arrested and kept in detention under
POTA.
The Supreme Court of India has accepted the submission made by
Attorney General Soli Sorabjee that mere expression of sympathy or verbal support for a banned organisation would not fall within the purview of
Section 21 of
POTA.
When the apex court expressed its view in favour of Vaiko and others, why is it
that the petition filed by them was dismissed? It is for some valid reasons that the apex court has dismissed the batch of
writ petitions.
First the apex court could not concur with the view of Vaiko and others that Section 21 of
POTA is against the freedom of expression enshrined in the Constitution and, hence, it upheld the constitutional validity of POTA by dismissing their writ petitions.
 The apex court is of the firm view that
POTA is essential for a country like India to tackle terrorism, a view held by the BJP
government too. The apex court is only against the misuse of POTA and not against
the Act as such, contrary to the views of the opposition parties, who want it
scrapped.
The court also expressed the view that bail for a POTA accused can be sought even before the expiry of one year and normal bail provisions will apply after the expiry of one year.
The leader of the Tamil Desiya Iyakkam,
P Nedumaran, and journalist Nakkeeran Gopal were subsequently released on bail.
Vaiko said though he could approach the courts on bail, he would await
the decision of the review committee (the hearing has been postponed to January
7). The Government of Tamil Nadu had made objections to the review committee's
jurisdiction.
As the Supreme Court not only delivered
a verdict but also expressed its views in favour of Vaiko and others and with the
POTA Amendment Bill also having been passed in Parliament, the decision of the review committee to release Vaiko and others would just be a mere formality.
 A disturbing feature of the whole issue is that it could not be understood why
Tamil Nadu has taken the issue so personally. When Vaiko was permitted by a single judge of the High Court
to be released for just one day to attend Parliament, the state government was vigorous to appeal, within hours, before a High Court bench to stay the order.
When
P Nedumaran was released by the High Court, the government had vehemently appealed to the Supreme Court for
cancellation of his bail.
The Supreme Court has rightly observed,
"He is a leader of the party. They are all politicians. In a democracy can't they take a political view? You are taking things too far." Even against Nakkeeran Gopal's release,
the government had filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the Supreme Court.
The efforts made by the
Government of Tamil Nadu to appeal in the High Court as well as the Supreme Court for all these cases would have involved several lakhs of rupees and is it fair to waste
taxpayer's money? The state received a below normal Monsoon this year. For the past two years, the Thanjavur delta farmers have not raised their crops due to a tussle
with Karnataka on using the waters of the Cauvery. The residents of Chennai city have been facing acute water shortage.
Instead of concentrating on such public issues and spending the money
on such problems, the government, it seems, has been wasting its efforts and money on
vindictive politics.
Anyhow, the verdict of the
Supreme Court on POTA has given a message to everyone: "In a democracy, the policy of repression
cannot not survive for long".
Harvey
|
