‘If A Policeman Is Attacked, The Society Is Not Safe’: Madras HC Bats For Enactment Of New Goonda Act; Seeks State’s Response [Read Order]

first_imgNews Updates’If A Policeman Is Attacked, The Society Is Not Safe’: Madras HC Bats For Enactment Of New Goonda Act; Seeks State’s Response [Read Order] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK24 Aug 2020 11:48 PMShare This – x”If a policeman is attacked, the Society is not safe. The Police has got powers to use mild force for the maintenance of law and order. However, what is happening in the society is that people gather in group to overpower the Police, abuse and attack him while doing his statutory duty. Many cases of attacks on Police are reported in the newspapers and shown in the…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?Login”If a policeman is attacked, the Society is not safe. The Police has got powers to use mild force for the maintenance of law and order. However, what is happening in the society is that people gather in group to overpower the Police, abuse and attack him while doing his statutory duty. Many cases of attacks on Police are reported in the newspapers and shown in the visual media.”The Madras High Court on Monday directed the State Government to file a “proper reply” to the queries raised by the Court with regard to prevalence of Goonda Raj in the state. The Division Bench comprising Justice N. Kirubakaran and Justice VM Velumani particularly sought to know from the Government why it had not come out with a new Act to eliminate ‘rowdy gangs’, in suit with the Governments of Maharashtra and Karnataka. The Court insisted that rowdy gangs are active in Tamil Nadu for more than 25 years and thus the State cannot claim there is no necessity for an enactment like Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999. It noted that a high number of cases are registered in Tamil Nadu by the National Investigation Agency and more number of terror activities are carried out in the State. The State topped in the number of ISI sympathizers arrested from across the country and the illegal activities carried out by anti-social elements. It further noted that in Tamil Nadu, Goondas have got proximity with Police, political leaders and communal leaders. In fact, almost all the political parties have them as office bearers and a few of the MLAs and MPs are with criminal background. Thus batting for enactment of a new Act like Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999 and The Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act, 2000 in Tamil Nadu the Court said, “If such an Act is brought into force it will give more power to the Police to deal with gangsters and antisocial elements effectively in the interest of the society.” The above remarks were made during hearing of a habeas corpus petition seeking release of a ‘rowdy’ accused of murder of a policeman, constable P. Subramanian, by throwing a bomb at him during police chase. In its strongly worded order, the Division Bench criticized the local political leaders/ parties and Human rights activists and organizations, for remaining tight-lipped on the of “brutal murder” of the constable. “Human rights activists and organizations who used to make hue and cry and condemn police action against criminals as violation of human rights, are keeping quiet. Probably, in their perspective, the policemen are not human beings and there is no violation of rights if police suffer or die at the hands of criminals. It is very disheartening to note that the representatives of people, ie., persons who claim to be political leaders, have neither condemned the said incident nor offered condolence for the death of the young policeman to the bereaved family,” the Court observed. The Court proceeded to contemplate the reason behind such “guarded silence” and wondered if the same is due to their “political strategy based on communal considerations in the interest of their political fortunes.” The Court noted that when the 2 years old Sujith Wilson fell into a borewell dug by his own father last year and ultimately died, all the political parties lined up and paid lakhs of rupees to the father of the child. However, the same yardstick is not applied by the political leaders in the present case. “This kind of attitude of political parties including ruling party would demoralize the police force and they will not have any confidence to discharge their duties without fear and they should also have confidence that their family will be looked after not only by the Government but also by the political parties and the representatives of the people, in case, any unfortunate eventuality happens to them,” it said. Upset by the demise of a young policeman, “who laid down his precious life for the sake of the society leaving behind his young wife who is two months pregnant and a 10 month old child in lurch”, the Court remarked, “If a policeman is attacked, the Society is not safe.” The Court strongly deprecated the practice of gathering of crowds that attempt to “overpower” the Police and abuse and attack them during discharge of their statutory duty. Click Here To Download Order Read Order Next Storylast_img read more