Thursday, February 17 2005 18:32 Hrs (IST) - World Time -

Rajapalayam(TN): The detention of Kanchi Mutt Manager Sundaresa Iyer and Raghu, brother of junior Shankaracharya Vijayendra Saraswathi, both accused in the Sankararaman murder case under the Goondas Act appears to be a clear violation of a Tamil Nadu Government's recent directive on detentions under the stringent law.

The circular, issued last month to the District Collectors and Superintendents of Police (SPs), had asked them to ensure that while ordering detention of a person under the Act, there should be at least one "adverse" case or more cases against the detenue other than the ground case.

The ciruclar had been issued in the light of observations made by the Supreme Court which held in a case that, a solitary instance of robbery, as mentioned in the grounds for detention under the Goondas Act in a criminal case, was not relevant for sustaining the order of detention for the purpose of preventing the persons from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, an official said on condition of anonimity.

Besides, the Advisory Board, empowered to review the detentions under the Act, had also taken a stand that for the solitary offence under Sec 302 India Penal Code (IPC), (murder), the normal law would take care and therefore there may not be any detention under the said Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 against such individuals as "Goondas."

The Government had revoked some detention orders also following the above advice of the board, the official said.

The brother of Raghu had last week moved the Madras High Court seeking to set aside the detention order. Besides Raghu and Sundaresa Iyer, the police had detained 14 other accused in the Sankararaman murder case under the Goondas Act.

The circular also pointed out that some of the detaining authorities had exercised the powers to pass the detention order against individuals who had committed a solitary offence in the category of 'Goonda', adding the courts would allow Habeas Corpus petition filed by such detenues. The official wondered how the SP and Collector of Kancheepuram District violated the circular issued by the Government when they detained Sundaresa Iyer and Raghu under Goondas Act. The circular also gave a defenition of Goondas Act which said, "Goonda means a person, who either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang, habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences, punishable under some sections of IPC including intimidation, robbery and annoyance.

In the Habeas Corpus petition before the High Court, the brother of Raghu has claimed that the detention of his brother under the Goondas Act was 'malafide' and passed solely to stifle Raghu's attempt to secure bail in the Sankararaman murder case. He also contended that no material was disclosed to show why the detaining authority had concluded that Raghu was a Goonda.