On Friday, while asking expelled AIADMK MP Sashikala Pushpa and her family members to appear in person in the Madurai bench of the Madras HC on August 29, the Supreme Court restrained the Tamil Nadu p
On Friday, while asking expelled AIADMK MP Sashikala Pushpa and her family members to appear in person in the Madurai bench of the Madras HC on August 29, the Supreme Court restrained the Tamil Nadu police from arresting them for six weeks in an alleged sexual harassment complaint filed by a former maid servant.
A three-judge bench of Chief Justice T.S. Thakur and Justices A.M. Kanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud passed this order on an appeal filed by Ms Pushpa and others challenging an interim order of the high court seeking their personal appearance in court on August 29 in the anticipatory bail plea filed by them.
Senior counsel Siddarth Luthra, appearing for the petitioners, informed the bench that after the slapping incident (involving DMK MP Tiruchi Siva), Ms Pushpa was expelled from the party and cases were foisted against her and her family for an incident that was alleged to have happened in 2011.
The petitioners apprehended arrest if they appeared in the HC on August 29, he said and as such sought protection from arrest.
Senior counsel and additional advocate general Subramonium Prasad, appearing for TN, said that the petitioners had sought withdrawal of the anticipatory bail petitions and that the court did not allow them to withdraw. He opposed the grant of any protection to the petitioners.
The CJI told the counsel, “Why are you so keen on her appearance What is the great hurry She is a lady MP and she is not running away. Why should you arrest her The fact that you are opposing, shows that there is something more than what meets the eye. Is this is a counter blast against her (for the allegations she made against chief minister Jayalalithaa) ”
In a brief order, the bench said that the petitioners should appear in the HC as per the orders dated August 23. The petitioners are protected from arrest for six weeks.
The bench said, “In the meantime, the HC should dispose of the anticipatory bail applications uninfluenced by the fact that we have protected the petitioners from arrest.”
In their petition they said that the HC, while hearing an anticipatory bail petition, had erroneously ordered that they be present before it on the next date of hearing i.e. on August 29 without deciding the anticipatory bail petition on merits. They submitted that they cannot be compelled to be personally present at the hearing of an anticipatory bail application in view of the strong apprehension of arrest as soon as they enter the state of Tamil Nadu.
Further, the hearing of the anticipatory bail petition will be rendered infructuous if they are arrested even before they can make an appearance in the high court. Therefore, the petitioners are only seeking a limited relief of exemption from making a personal appearance in the high court on August 29 in view of the apprehension of imminent arrest and a grave threat to their life and liberty. They requested for a hearing of the anticipatory bail petition on merits.
The petitioners said that after Ms Sashikala was expelled from the party, numerous false cases were filed against them in the state in a bid to compel and pressurise her to resign from her seat in the Rajya Sabha. One such complaint was filed by Mrs B. Banumati, wife of late Karupasamy, before the Tuticorin (Tamil Nadu) superintendent of police falsely claiming to have been sexually harassed by the petitioners while working as a maid in the house of the petitioners in the year 2011.
Ms Sashikala said that on August 17 she signed the vakalatnama for the bail application to be filed in the Madras high court at Madurai bench while she was in India and sent it to Madurai through her husband. She said that she left for Singapore the same day on a late night flight fearing for her life. However, due to a clerical mistake, the date on the vakalatnama was entered as August 18 before it was filed in the high court. For this mistake the HC ordered their personal appearance.
