4 Affidavit of Manikandan

BEFORE THE JUSTICE SRIKRISHNA COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY

V.MANIKANDAN
ADVOCATE
169, Additional Law Chambers,
High Court, Madras.                                                                                                                                                       – DEPONENT

AFFIDAVIT OF V.MANIKANDAN

I, V.Manikandan, S/o Vathan Chettiar aged about 30 years having office at 196, additional law chambers, High Court, Madras, solemnly affirm as follows,

1) I am an advocate practicing before the Madras High Court.

2) Since January 2009, the advocate associations gave a call for boycott of courts, protesting the genocide in SriLanka. Earlier the state government had also been voicing its concerns about the genocide, and all the Members of Parliament belonging to the ruling DMK party expressed their discontent by submitting their resignations to the Chief Minister, instead of the Presiding officers of the houses. Later on however, the DMK and its allies were seen to be taking a softer stand for reasons best known to them. As such the only category of people which was voicing its concern about the genocide were advocates of the Madras High Court and a small group of tamil leaders, such as VaiKo, Nedumaran, etc.

3) On 18.2.09, the boycott of courts was terminated. On 19.2.09, when the High Court resumed functioning I had a case (WP 11067/08) before the Court of Justice Mohanram, and after attending the said case, I went to the writ section to number a PIL seeking recall of Indian troops and military equipment illegally supplied by India to SriLanka. Thereafter I had lunch at Sangeetha restaurant opposite to the High Court, and I was returning to the chambers at around 1.45 PM.

4) Enroute, I noticed that there was a procession heading towards the High Court police station, and I could prominently see Mr.Karuppan, the former president of the MHAA (Madras High Court Advocates Association) having a word with DCP’s PannerSelvam, Prem Anand Sinha and ACP Khader Mohideen. About 25 lawyers were present around him.

5) I entered the gathering, and came to know that an activist-lawyer Mr.Rajinikanth had preferred a criminal complaint against Dr.Subramanian Swamy and that the group of lawyers had come there to demand issuance of a copy of the FIR, on the said complaint.

6) I heard DCP Panneerselvam demanding (politely) that Mr.Karuppan hand over the 14 persons wanted in the Subramanian Swamy egg-pelting case. Mr.Karuppan also politely replied that the ‘wanted advocates’ were present, and that they have come only to court arrest. So saying Karuppan demanded a copy of the FIR on the complaint against Swamy.

7) DCP Panneerselvam, assured that he had no problem in issuing an FIR, but demanded that since he was under tremendous pressure to ‘secure’ the accused in the Subramanian Swamy case, he would issue the FIR on the one hand, and that Karuppan was to ‘hand-over’ the accused on the other.
So saying DCP Panneerselvam, kept on taking instructions from certain persons over his mobile phone. (PanneerSelvam’s mobile itemized bill would disclose as to whom he was in touch-with during the incidents). DCP Panneerselvam kept on insisting that Karuppan hand-over the 14 accused, and we asked him the names of the accused, and Panneerselvam could not recollect the names. I asked for a copy of the FIR against the lawyers, but Panneerselvam expressed his inability to provide the same. He then called ACP Kader Moideen to list the names, and Kader Moideen mentioned the names orally and Karuppan hilariously appreciated Kader Moideen’s memory power.

9) When I asked Kader Moideen for the FIR copy (against the advocates) and what are the provisions under which it was registered, both Kader and Panneerselvam expressed their inability to disclose the same. I even emphasized that one Mr.Gini Manuel (a former secretary of the association) had already been arrested and remanded, a couple of days earlier, and that there is no reason why he should not disclose the contents of the FIR. But still there was no positive response.

10) At one point Karuppan undertook the responsibility of handing-over the 14 accused (advocates), and when Panneerselvam was asked about the FIR, he told us that the FIR was being prepared. About 20 minutes had lapsed in the process, (around 2 PM), and commandos began to surround the gathering, and one advocate Shri.Anbarasan even raised his voice as to why the lawyers were being ‘CORDONED’. ACP Khader Moideen replied that the lawyers were not being cordoned, and directed the commandos to move behind.

11) This act of CORDONING at the earliest stage when there were no more than 25 lawyers (including the 14 wanted lawyers) itself indicates that there was a conspiracy to indulge in the subsequent riot by the policemen.

12) Thereafter, some advocates politely questioned the DCP as to why the police were knocking the doors of the advocates (wanted in the egg-pelting incident) in the midnight and intimidating the women members of the family etc.

13) At this early stage, only the police videographer and the tv crew of Makkal TV, and Zee Tamil, were covering the incidents. It is imperative for this Hon’ble Committee to summon and secure the unedited footage of these camera crew for viewing.

14) Once again after a few phone calls, DCP Panneerselvam requested Mr.Karuppan to provide ANY 25 additional advocates who were cited in the category of “unnamed accused” (thinking that Karuppan would and had the capacity to oblige). Even as Mr.Karuppan was prevaricating, I vehemently objected to these negotiations and told DCP Panneerselvam that his demand was akin to seeking accused in a prohibition case from wine shop owners, and that Karuppan had no authority to keep feeding the police with accused persons.

15) I stubbornly told Mr.Panneerselvam that the crowd was swelling due to the delay in issuance of FIR. I further asked him as to why it was taking almost over 45 minutes to register a one page FIR. He replied that it would be ready in the next few minutes, and kept on delaying the issuance of the same. At one point, Rajinikanth, (who was seated on the floor within a few yards, was even called, and he was taken inside the police station, amidst applause).

16) But Panneerselvam kept on demanding the handing-over of the other 13 named and 25 ‘ANY’ advocates. I reminded him about the law, saying that when he was registering a counter-case, he was to examine the parties and then decide as to who has committed which of the offences alleged, and then decide whether or not to arrest. Panneerselvam pleaded inability claiming that he was under pressure from the top.

17) In the meantime Mr.Rajinikanth, came out of the police station, and began to interact with Panneerselvam demanding a copy of the FIR. Panneerselvam repeatedly requested Karuppan to hand-over the accused, and promising to do so, Karuppan collected the FIR copy and displayed it to the 2 camera crew namely Makkal TV, and Zee Tamil.

18) Therafter, disappointed with Karuppan’s inability to meet the demands of the police, AC Kader Moideen demanded the return of the FIR. Karuppan returned the FIR, which Kader Moideen shoved into his shirt above his belt buckle (reminiscent of cops hiding bribes), and within 5 seconds the green signal was given and commandos began to beat, kick, and push me and other advocates (15 in number, including 3 persons in their robes and case bundles in hand) into a police van. I protested in vain. Mechanically we were shoved into the van, and the van raced-off at massive speed.

19) Besides the driver, 5 commandos (All of whom had removed their name badges) guarded us and the van went to Kondithope and paused for a while. I wanted to urinate but the commando refused to allow me, and declined to answer questions, as to why and where we were being taken.

20) Thereafter we were taken to Elephant gate police station, and finally to Thousand lights police station. After hours of argument, myself and others were allowed to urinate, and we were kept inside the van in suffocating conditions for almost 6 hours till around 9.30 PM. We were neither informed about the reasons for our arrest. 3 advocates were in fact in full uniform with case bundles in hand. Apparently they were walking between the courts when they were shoved in.

21) We then went to the hospital to meet our injured colleagues. We noticed that our colleagues were brutally beaten-up as a result of a conspiracy to dissolve the movement to stop the genocide in Sri Lanka.

22) When we came out we were informed by our friends that a CBI inquiry had been ordered. Hence we did not lodge any complaint against our illegal detention, and were waiting for the CBI. Thereafter, at around 11.30 PM, I went to the High Court, and could see armed personnel standing outside the Esplanade police station and around the court gate numbering around 250. I went inside and saw that my car was heavily damaged, and towed it away.

As an interim measure I request the Justice SriKrishna Committee to,
(1) summon the unedited footage of the police cameras, and also that of Makkal Tv and Zee Tamil, which were present since the early stages &
(2) summon the itemized phone bills of the police officers and seek explanation as to the conversations that they held telephonically,

Hence I request the Justice SriKrishna Committee to recommend appropriate punitive action and compensation, in connection with all the incidents narrated supra, including

(A) The illegal demand to hand over the accused as a quid pro quo for the FIR,
(B) The unlawful cordoning and arrest of 14 colleagues and myself, and our illegal detention for over 6 hours in the police van,
(C) The brutal attacks on hundreds of lawyers and judges, who reported for treatment, and those who fled for their lives,
(D) The damage to court properties, and vehicles of lawyers .