VM Sudheeran, VS Achuthanandan criticise High Court defence of Vellapally Natesan
25 Dec 2015 11:30 AM IST
Mr Sudheeran said the court made the remarks without going into the merits of the case.
Vellapally Natesan
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: KPCC president V.M. Sudheeran on Thursday criticised the High Court for making ill-timed observations while hearing the anticipatory bail application of SNDP Yogam general secretary Vellapally Natesan in connection with the case registered against him for making communally provocative speeches.
Opposition Leader V.S. Achuthanandan also criticised the court saying that it should have been cautious while dealing with such matters.
“Vellapally’s speech was clearly aimed at triggering communal passions and dividing people on communal lines. At a time when these sections are making attempts to create communal divide in society, the courts should handle such issues with caution. There is a lapse in comprehending the situation,” he said.
Mr Sudheeran said the court made the remarks without going into the merits of the case. “The police are examining the speech following allegations that it had stirred up communal passions and created unrest and disha-rmony between different religious communities in the state.”
“At the moment, the cops were recording the statements of people belonging to different communities to ascertain the facts,” V.M. Sudheeran said.
“Under these circumstances, the court making observations about the merits of the case, and that too without examining the case diary, was inopportune. Such remarks at a time when the probe was in its initial stage, would have an adverse impact on the investigations into the case,” he said.
Mr Sudheeran pointed out that the court observations were also against the Supreme Court verdict that the merits of the case should not be evaluated while granting bail to an accused.
The High Court, while granting the anticipatory bail, said: “Prima facie it would appear that the petitioner was agitating against the discriminatory practices adopted by the state.
It would be difficult to hold that the objectionable words used in the speech have the effect of promoting disharmony or feelings. The petitioner was agitated about the state’s attitude towards different communities.
Download the all new Deccan Chronicle app for Android and iOS to stay up-to-date with latest headlines and news stories in politics, entertainment, sports, technology, business and much more from India and around the world.
( Source : deccan chronicle )
Next Story
