Today, Madras High Court delivered verdict Today (March 12), 2024, by quashing a criminal case filed by the Dindigul police against T.N. Rural Development Minister I. Periyasamy & others.
The Madras High Court delivered a crucial verdict Today (March 12), 2024, by quashing a criminal case filed by the Dindigul police against T.N. Rural Development Minister I. Periyasamy, his son I.P. Senthilkumar, and several others. The case, which dates back to December 2019, was initiated due to their involvement in protesting against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.
According to the court proceedings, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, after thorough consideration, sided with the petitioner’s counsel A. Saravanan’s argument. He emphasized the redundancy of keeping this particular criminal case unresolved, especially in light of the State government’s prior actions. It’s worth noting that in 2019, the State government had issued a Government Order withdrawing over 5,000 cases that were lodged against individuals participating in anti-CAA protests.
This decision reaffirms the principles of justice and aligns with the State’s acknowledgment of the need to address grievances stemming from the anti-CAA protests, stated Counsel Saravanan, expressing his satisfaction with the court’s ruling.
The quashing of the criminal case comes as a relief to Minister Periyasamy, his son, and the others involved, who had been facing the looming threat of legal repercussions for their activism against the controversial Citizenship (Amendment) Act. The act, which sparked nationwide debates and protests upon its introduction, has been a contentious issue since its inception.
This verdict not only upholds our right to dissent but also highlights the importance of judicial scrutiny in safeguarding civil liberties, commented a member of the legal team representing the defendants.
The ruling is anticipated to have broader implications, setting a precedent for similar cases pending across the state. It underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring that individuals exercising their democratic right to protest are not unduly penalized, particularly when the government itself has taken steps to address the grievances underlying such protests.
However, the decision has not been without its critics. Some argue that the court’s intervention could potentially undermine law enforcement efforts and send a message of impunity to those engaging in acts of civil disobedience.
This ruling sets a dangerous precedent and could embolden individuals to flout the law under the guise of protest, remarked a legal expert, expressing concerns over the implications of the judgment.
Nevertheless, supporters of the verdict maintain that it reflects a balanced approach towards reconciling the right to protest with the imperative of maintaining law and order. They assert that quashing the case against Minister Periyasamy and others is a step towards fostering a more inclusive and participatory democracy.
As the legal battle concludes with this judgment, it serves as a reminder of the enduring importance of the judiciary in upholding democratic values and ensuring accountability within the corridors of power. Moving forward, it remains to be seen how this landmark decision shapes the discourse surrounding dissent and governance in the country.
CLICK HERE TO READ Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) VERDICT
