Plea for probe into journalists pelting stones at actor’s house

An advocate has filed a public interest litigation petition in the Madras High Court, seeking a probe by either the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department (CB-CID) into an incident in which a section of journalists pelted the residence of BJP functionary and actor S.Ve. Shekher with stones on April 20, after he shared a derogatory Facebook post about women journalists.

K. Prem Anand, 31, of Choolaimedu, filed the plea, accusing the Pattinapakkam police of not having taken any action pursuant to registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against 30 journalists under Sections 148 (rioting with deadly weapons), 323 (causing hurt), 336 (act endangering life or personal safety of others) and 506part I (criminal intimidation) of Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act of 1992.

Accusing the journalists of having taken law into their hands, the petitioner, in his affidavit, said: “I submit that the print/visual media in the recent days are acting as an extra constitutional authority. They have their own ideology and airing news and information as per their whims and fancies. Under the pretext of investigative journalism, they have been airing distorted information without ascertaining its authenticity and had been misleading the general public.”

Objecting to media interference into the affairs of the government as well as the private sector, the lawyer said that journalists do not even spare the judiciary. Pointing out that the 30 journalists booked on charges of stone pelting had not been arrested or even summoned for enquiry so far, the petitioner said that a free and fair enquiry could be conducted in the case only if it was transferred either to the CBI or at least the CB-CID.

Plea in HC

J. Kavin Malar, one of the 30 journalists booked for stone pelting, filed a writ petition in the High Court accusing Chief Secretary Girija Vaidyanathan of preventing Chennai city police from arresting Mr.Shekher in the case booked against him under Sections 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), 509 (act intended to insult the modesty of women) read with Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act of 1998.

Stating that the Chief Secretary was the sister-in-law of the accused, the petitioner, in her affidavit, alleged, “The third respondent (Ms. Vaidyanathan) is harbouring the fourth respondent (Shekher) in her house for the past two weeks which is punishable under Section 212 of Indian Penal Code. The third respondent is wrongfully restraining the first (Commissioner of Police, Chennai) and second (Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Cell) respondents from entering into her house to secure the accused.”

Further, pointing out that the High Court had on May 10 dismissed Mr. Shekher’s anticipatory bail application with stinging observations against him, the petitioner sought a direction to the police to proceed against the Chief Secretary for the alleged offence of harbouring the accused. She also wanted a consequential direction to the police to conduct a search at Ms. Vaidyanathan’s house and arrest the accused in connection with the case booked against him.