In a significant move, the Madras High Court on Wednesday suo motu brought both the Chief Secretary and the Home Secretary into a pending petition filed by the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK). The court is seeking their direct input on a crucial policy decision: whether the State government should mandate security deposits from political parties for public meetings, processions, and similar events.
Justice N. Sathish Kumar has given these newly added respondents until October 16 to submit their response. The judge didn’t hold back his disapproval when an Assistant Inspector General (AIG) of Police, a Superintendent-ranked officer, filed an affidavit. This affidavit was meant to address the court’s September 18 order regarding compulsory security deposits.
The AIG’s affidavit claimed there were currently no legal provisions for collecting such deposits to cover damages to public or private property during political events. It further stated that the police department would need time to establish these guidelines, after consulting all relevant parties, as directed by the court.
Expressing his dissatisfaction, Justice Kumar remarked to Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) E. Raj Thilak, that “what is required to frame the guidelines is the will to do so.” He emphasized that the AIG was not the appropriate authority to make such a policy decision on behalf of the State government, thus making it essential to include the Chief Secretary and Home Secretary as respondents in the case.
The TVK, represented by its deputy general secretary C.T.R. Nirmal Kumar, originally approached the High Court to protest what they called “onerous” conditions imposed by the police on their leader C. Joseph Vijay’s statewide campaign. The party alleged that their leader was being unfairly targeted, suggesting that these stringent conditions were being enforced at the behest of the current administration.
During the September 8 hearing, Justice Kumar highlighted numerous past incidents where political gatherings led to significant damage to private and public property. He strongly underscored the need for the State government to formulate guidelines for collecting security deposits to compensate for such losses, citing the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act of 1992.
The judge pointedly asked the APP, “When you collect EMD (Earnest Money Deposit) from civil contractors, why can’t you collect security deposit from political parties, especially when the TNPPDL Act provides for compensating the loss caused to public as well as private property?”