TN govt opposes in HC contempt plea by Idol wing special officer

Image
Press Trust of India Chennai
Last Updated : Nov 20 2019 | 10:25 PM IST

The Tamil Nadu government strongly opposed in the Madras High Court on Wednesday a contempt petition filed by Pon Manickavel, appointed by the court as special officer to probe idol theft cases, alleging that he was the highest contemnor of the orders of the high court and the Supreme Court.

Submitting his arguments before a bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice P D Audikesavalu, state Additional Advocate General Balaji Srinivasan contended that the retired IPS officer never attended a single review meeting convened by the Additional Director General of Police of the Idol Wing.

This was despite a clear direction by the apex court that he should report the progress of idol theft cases to the ADGP. There was no ambiguity in the line of command. The Supreme Court was clear that the ADGP is the head of the Idol wing force, he submitted.

Manickavel, who was appointed special officer with the tenure of one year by the court on November 30 last year, filed the contempt petition in June alleging that impediments were being created in the investigation and several cases over missing idols had not been transferred to the wing despite court orders.

He has prayed the court to punish the chief secretary, home secretary and idol wing ADGP for contempt of court for alleged disobedience of its earlier orders.

When the matter came up for hearing on Wednesday, Additional Advocate General Srinivasan made a series of allegations against the special officer and accused him of demoralising the idol wing in the past one year.

This apart, Manickavel had issued orders to all his subordinate officers to not attend the review meetings held by the ADGP, he added.

Responding to this, the bench sought to know from Srinivasan as to why the state did not approach the high court or the Supreme Court citing such allegations.

To this, he said, "It was because we did not want to destroy the entire institution. Would it be appropriate for the state to point finger against the special officer who is an officer of this court?"

Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Nov 20 2019 | 10:25 PM IST

Next Story