Though the campaigning for the Lok Sabha as well as byelections to 18 Assembly constituencies in the State is all set to come to an end on Tuesday, there does not seem to be an end in sight for efforts made by the State to gag Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) president M.K. Stalin from speaking about the 2017 Kodanad heist-cum-murder case.
Chennai City Public Prosecutor Gowri Asokan on Monday adopted an unusual practice of filing a contempt of court petition accusing Mr. Stalin of having disobeyed “oral orders” passed by the court on multiple occassions directing him not to precipitate the issue by speaking about the murder case that was pending trial before the lower court concerned.
When the contempt petition got listed before Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan on Monday, the judge wondered how he could initiate action when no written order had been passed by the court imposing a gag order. Nevertheless, at the instance of State Public Prosecutor A. Natarajan, he adjourned the case to Tuesday to decide its maintainability.
The genesis of the issue dates back to an interview of Mr. Stalin carried in his party organ Murasoli on January 14. In it, he had insisted on the resignation of Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami since a New Delhi-based journalist had released a video associating the CM with the Kodanad heist-cum-murder.
Defamation case
The CPP filed a criminal defamation case against the DMK president before the Principal Sessions Court here. Aggrieved over it, he filed a petition before the High Court and obtained an interim stay for the defamation proceedings and also an order dispensing with his personal appearancebefore the lower court.
Days later, the CPP filed two sub applications before the High Court. One of them sought for vacating the interim stay and the other a gag order restraining him from making public speeches regarding the Kodanad crime. When the applications got listed for admission on March 29, the judge wondered how speeches could be made about a murder case pending in court.
However, he adjourned the hearing on the two applications to April 4 at the request of Mr. Stalin’s counsel P. Kumaresan. On that day again, the judge expressed his displeasure over a Leader of the Opposition making speeches regarding a matter that was subjudice, especially when the bail granted to two accused in the case had been cancelled for similar reasons. After a short adjournment, when the matter was taken up again on April 8, the SPP played video clips to the judge on a mobile phone and claimed that the DMK president had been continuing to talk about the subject in public meetings. However, Mr. Kumaresan denied the charge and claimed that his client had stopped precipitating the matter.
On the other hand, he played another video of certain remarks made by the Chief Minister during a public speech and asked whether it behoved well of a CM to utter such words. In an attempt to give a quietus to the dispute, the judge said the matter could be solved by recording the statement that Mr. Stalin had agreed not to precipitate the issue.
However, Mr. Kumaresan expressed certain reservations over recording such an undertaking. He told the court that recording the statement might affect his client’s interest in the defamation proceedings and therefore the court may simply adjourn the matter by taking into account his oral submission made in the court.
When the matter stood thus, the CPP, in her contempt petition claimed that Mr. Stalin spoke about the Kodanad issue once again in a public meeting held at Namakkal on April 13. “The said act of the contemnor is clearly violation of the oral orders passed by this honourable court and clearly amounts to contempt of the court,” her affidavit read.