Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Sunday, November 24, 2024

PFI’s Flash Hartal Illegal : Kerala High Court Initiates Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings, Directs Police To Take Strict Measures

Posted in: Criminal Law
Sat, Sep 24, 22, 12:18, 2 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 5696
Kerala Chamber of Commerce and Industry v. Kerala and Malyalavedi v Kerala has strongly condemned and initiated suo motu proceedings against the leaders of Popular Front of India (PFI), noting the illegal call for flash hartal in the State, which was earlier banned by the Court.

One is really most ashamed, aghast and appalled to learn from the leading website portal - LiveLaw known world over for its most authentic reporting that none other than the Kerala High Court itself in a learned, laudable, landmark and latest case law titled Kerala Chamber of Commerce and Industry v. State of Kerala and Malyalavedi v. State of Kerala has strongly condemned and initiated suo motu proceedings against the leaders of Popular Front of India (PFI), noting the illegal call for flash hartal in the State, which was earlier banned by the Court.

It is the common man who suffers the most for no fault of his and so also a common woman and children who go to school but due to hartal are compelled to stay at home and in many cases are even caught in the violence and suffer injuries also by being caught in the crossfire! It must be mentioned here that visuals very clearly showed hartal supporters pelting stones at the Kerala State Transport Corporation (KSRTC) bus at Panamaram village in Wayanad district.

The bus was going to Kozhikode. KSRTC buses were also attacked furiously in Kozhikode, Kochi, Alappuzha and Kollam. Even in the state capital of Thiruvananthapuram, an autorickshaw and a car were seen in a damaged state after being attacked in Poonthura. These are just the initial reports. The whole day is yet to pass as I am writing this.

As we know, the PFI had called for dawn-to-dusk hartal starting from 6 am to 6 pm in the Kerala State today that is 23 September, 2022 following the arrest of its leaders by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) yesterday. I had myself seen in different news channels how all hell broke loose with even private vehicles like cars and jeeps not being spared, being smashed and burnt and what not in protest against the NIA raid. This is really just not done and is most condemnable!

Not just this, we saw how even two police officers were attacked by the hartal supporters of PFI group at Pallimukku in Kollam district. Suffice it to say: How can any country tolerate this unprovoked violence with innocents being targeted shamelessly, senselessly and mercilessly and still take it just lying down without doing anything in return? So it is a no-brainer that the Court was left with no other option but to step in promptly which it did accordingly for which it has to be applauded in no uncertain terms!

It must be mentioned right at the outset that a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Hon’ble Mr Justice Mohammed Nias CP observed without mincing any words whatsoever that stringent action must be taken against the violators of the Court order. It must be noted that the Bench stated in the order while saying that it is suo motu initiating separate action for contempt that:
The action of the aforementioned persons in calling for the hartal without following the procedure contemplated in our earlier order, prima facie, amounts to contempt of the directions of this Court in the order aforementioned.

In hindsight, it may be recalled that the Kerala High Court had previously in an order dated 7.1.2019 issued directions to ensure that a call for hartal or general strike does not have the effect of affecting the fundamental rights of those who do not align with the cause of those calling for the hartal and had mandated 7-days prior notice for declaring hartal. The Court had made it absolutely clear that flash hartals, namely those hartals/strikes called without adhering to the procedure of giving seven days clear public notice, would be deemed illegal/unconstitutional entailing adverse consequences to the persons/party calling for the hartal. While condemning the calling of flash hartal by the PFI party against the arrest of its top leaders by NIA, the Court initiated suo motu proceedings against it.

While adding more to it, the Court added the Popular Front of India which was represented by State General Secretary and Sri A Abdul Sathar, State General Secretary Popular Front of India, Kerala State Committee as respondents in the matter.

It must be also stated here that in the wake of this situation, the Kerala High Court issued the following commendable directions:

  1. The police establishment in the State shall ensure that adequate measures are put in place to prevent any damage/destruction to public/private property of Government/citizens who do not support the call for hartal. In particular, the police shall also take steps to monitor any such activity by the supporters of the illegal hartal and shall place before this Court a report giving details of such instances and the extent of damage, if any, caused to public/private property. The said details would be necessary for this Court to take remedial action to recover such losses from the perpetrators of the illegality.
     
  2. The police establishment shall also keep in mind the provisions of the relevant Penal laws, including the provisions of Damage to Private Property and Payment of Compensation Act, 2019 as also the provisions of Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code while registering cases against those found to be flouting the law. Adequate police protection shall also be granted to all public utility services that apprehend violence, at the hands of those supporting the illegal hartal. We take note of the submission of the learned Director General of Prosecution – Sri TA Shaji that Circulars/instructions to the above effect have already been issued by the State Police Chief last evening.
     
  3. We note with some concern, that in the Media reports about the flash hartal today, there is a mere mention of the call for a flash hartal, without mentioning the details of the interim order passed by this Court which has the effect of rendering such calls for hartal without seven days public notice, as illegal. We, therefore, deem it necessary to once again request the Media to ensure that whenever such illegal flash hartals are called for, and it is apparent that the said hartal called is in violation of the orders passed by this Court, the public be duly informed of the said fact. This, in our view, would suffice to a large extent, in allaying the apprehensions of the general public as regards the legality of the call for hartal and also dissuade providers of public utility services from heeding to such calls for illegal hartals in future.
     


Having said this, it must also be mentioned here that the matter has been posted by the Kerala High Court for 29.09.2022 for the report of the State Government. Once the State Government submits its report to the High Court, then the case will proceed ahead. It is thus quite ostensible that the Kerala High Court has taken very strong exception of the callous manner in which the strike call has been given and the manner in which violence broke out in different parts due to the call of this strike.

It must be certainly mentioned here that in different news channels we see that it is being widely reported that there are mainly three primary objectives behind NIA’s surgical strike on PFI all across India in which over 100 PFI leaders have been arrested from all across the country. The first and the foremost purpose is decoding the entire PFI network. It is being also widely reported that NIA intends to break the network of PFI in all those states where even a single member of PFI is present. The second major purpose of this raid is to find out the sources of fundings for PFI. The third and final objective which merits due consideration is to gather evidence on the suspected role of PFI in incidents of communal violence and riots.

In a nutshell, it certainly merits no reiteration that it is definitely the primary responsibility of the PFI to comply lock, stock and barrel with what the Kerala High Court has directed so forthrightly while taking suo motu cognizance of the entire matter. It is in PFI’s own best interest and so also in the interest of the nation that it persuades its members to refrain from indulging in any manner in unprovoked violence which will do good to none and will only serve to attract most serious charges under various penal laws and anti-terror laws! How can any organisation ever justify such unprovoked violence by targeting those who have got nothing to do with the action initiated by the NIA?

More to the point: Why can’t PFI just take the proper route and fight the legal battle as is expected also from every Indian citizen whenever any action is taken against them? It must be noted that while releasing a statement, the PFI State Committee said that it considered the NIA’s arrest of PFI national and state leaders as unjust and part of atrocities by the State. If this is so then PFI must definitely fight the legal battle with the help of its legal team as every other good citizen of this country does and not resort to ugly street battle most senselessly as it will only serve to endanger their own credibility and so also the lives of their own members which would be most preposterous by any yardstick that can never be justified under any circumstances!

It is a no-brainer that if PFI is not in any way associated with terror outfits then it has nothing to worry as the Courts will definitely come to their rescue and they must prove their mettle by arguing their case with all the defence that they have with them! But if it is associated with various terror outfits and if it thinks that violence will deter Centre, Courts and NIA from acting against it and their members then it is definitely hugely mistaken! We all who are citizens of India have to believe most strongly in the rule of law, always do our best to uphold it and act accordingly. More accurately, it must be said that no one of us is entitled under any circumstances to ever take law in our own hands and if we dare to do so then we should be ready to pay the heavy price for having done so.

Moreover, to say the least, it must be said on a very sober note that no organisation in any way under any circumstances has the unfettered right to resort to violence and arson under the garb of protest and this has been held also by the top court and so also by various High Courts also from time to time nor has the veto right to ever resort to hartal without giving the mandatory notice of seven days as mentioned above which is indispensable and here too hartal has to be the last resort and not the first resort that just because some leaders get arrested that hartal is called for without following due procedure as laid down under the law! One still fervently hopes that good sense will now prevail on PFI and it will from now onwards strongly refrain in future from haphazardly resorting to flash hartal like we saw now as the Kerala High Court has directed while taking strongest exception to flash hartal and act fully, firmly and finally in accordance with law which is definitely in their own best long term interests also! There can be just no denying or disputing it!

Last but not the least: If PFI fails to act as per law even now as they must being the citizens of India then it is not just the NIA but also the police, CID, CBI and all other law enforcing agencies that will bay for them for which they can then blame no one but their ownself for having most senselessly and brazenly refused to submit themselves to the due process of law. Now definitely the ball is in the court of the PFI! PFI must learn the right lessons from what happened in Jammu and Kashmir and how the fringe and radical elements are now lying in the margins after the decimation of so many terror groups! It must be said at the risk of repetition that violence definitely never pays and it only serves to attract various penal and anti-terror laws and the earlier the PFI realizes this and act as per law the better it shall be for them in their own long term interests and so also their members who always lead from the front yet pay the maximum by being in jail for the longest term!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top