Background.
1. (a) The day........ 05 Jul '15.
(b) The ADM of Idukki, Moncy P Alexander, was trying to implement a High Court order to
reinstate a gate blocking a pathway through a private estate.
(c) The estate was the Travancore Rubber and Tea Company Limited, near Peruvanthanam in
Idukki.
(d) The pathway was earlier 'cleared' by the local residents.
ES Bijimol, the CPI's Peermade MLA had assaulted the ADM, causing him grievous injury,
preventing him from carrying out the court's order.
The Slow Progress on the case.
2. The case has progressed slowly. The related milestones reflect the reality and are self explanatory:-
(a) 07 Sep '15 The High Court orders a crime branch inquiry into the case.
(b) The state government contends that the arrest of the MLA could be avoided
using the discretionary powers vested in the police under the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
(c) Mar '16 The MLA withdraws her petition, seeking anticipatory bail, that she'd filed
earlier.
(d) The court orders the state police to take action against the investigating officer
for failing to arrest her when she appeared before him for questioning.
The Court Steps In.
3. The Court had the following in retort to the government's contention:-
(a) The discretionary power of the police, regarding an arrest, can be used only in cases where
the punishment for the alleged offence was less than 7 yrs of imprisonment.
(b) Whereas, the offence committed by the MLA can fetch her a punishment of up to 10 yrs.
(c) The argument by the state government and the crime branch that the MLA need not be
arrested, therefore, was not acceptable.
(d) The order on the investigating officer stays.
My queries.
I've a few queries on this issue which are:-
(a) What protection does the government provide to its employees when they carry out
orders on its behalf? If it doesn't, as is seen in this case, what does the government
servant do to redress his grievance?
(b) Does a politician have unlimited powers, to the extent of manhandling and use of threats,
on a fellow citizen just because he/she has been elected by us?
(c) Why do many of the elected representatives feel that their theatrics, consisting of offensive
behaviour, violent tantrums coupled with abusive language and abrasiveness on unsuspecting,
ordinary citizens will fetch them votes and the berth in the Assembly? Why're they under
the misguided notion that such acts fetch them popularity?
(d) Ah and doesn't it show a bias in the application of rules on people, depending upon their
status?
Tailpiece.
It's my firm belief that the leadership of her party needs to advise Bijimol, the MLA, on the right aspects of parliamentary behaviour so that she desists from being obnoxious from now on!
1. (a) The day........ 05 Jul '15.
(b) The ADM of Idukki, Moncy P Alexander, was trying to implement a High Court order to
reinstate a gate blocking a pathway through a private estate.
(c) The estate was the Travancore Rubber and Tea Company Limited, near Peruvanthanam in
Idukki.
(d) The pathway was earlier 'cleared' by the local residents.
ES Bijimol, the CPI's Peermade MLA had assaulted the ADM, causing him grievous injury,
preventing him from carrying out the court's order.
The Slow Progress on the case.
2. The case has progressed slowly. The related milestones reflect the reality and are self explanatory:-
(a) 07 Sep '15 The High Court orders a crime branch inquiry into the case.
(b) The state government contends that the arrest of the MLA could be avoided
using the discretionary powers vested in the police under the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
(c) Mar '16 The MLA withdraws her petition, seeking anticipatory bail, that she'd filed
earlier.
(d) The court orders the state police to take action against the investigating officer
for failing to arrest her when she appeared before him for questioning.
The Court Steps In.
3. The Court had the following in retort to the government's contention:-
(a) The discretionary power of the police, regarding an arrest, can be used only in cases where
the punishment for the alleged offence was less than 7 yrs of imprisonment.
(b) Whereas, the offence committed by the MLA can fetch her a punishment of up to 10 yrs.
(c) The argument by the state government and the crime branch that the MLA need not be
arrested, therefore, was not acceptable.
(d) The order on the investigating officer stays.
My queries.
I've a few queries on this issue which are:-
(a) What protection does the government provide to its employees when they carry out
orders on its behalf? If it doesn't, as is seen in this case, what does the government
servant do to redress his grievance?
(b) Does a politician have unlimited powers, to the extent of manhandling and use of threats,
on a fellow citizen just because he/she has been elected by us?
(c) Why do many of the elected representatives feel that their theatrics, consisting of offensive
behaviour, violent tantrums coupled with abusive language and abrasiveness on unsuspecting,
ordinary citizens will fetch them votes and the berth in the Assembly? Why're they under
the misguided notion that such acts fetch them popularity?
(d) Ah and doesn't it show a bias in the application of rules on people, depending upon their
status?
Tailpiece.
It's my firm belief that the leadership of her party needs to advise Bijimol, the MLA, on the right aspects of parliamentary behaviour so that she desists from being obnoxious from now on!
No comments:
Post a Comment