Thoothukudi firing: Chennai cops issued notice to Frontline editor for exposing commission report

Six years after the Thoothukudi police firing incident, where 13 anti-Sterlite protesters were killed and over a hundred others injured, only four police officers have been suspended and no action has been taken against a dozen others. While the DMK government continues to dither in taking action against top cops, the Chennai police had issued a notice to Frontline magazine senior journalist, Ilangovan Rajasekaran, who had accessed key contents of the Justice Aruna Jagadeesan Commission report and written about it. The Justice Aruna Jagadeesan Commission of Inquiry, which probed the incident, indicted 17 police personnel, including high-ranking officers..The police notice was issued in April 2023 based on a complaint by an advocate named V Manikandan, who alleged that Ilangovan had violated the Officials Secrets Act by accessing a confidential report and making it public before it was tabled in the Assembly.The Justice Aruna Jagadeesan Commission report was submitted to the Tamil Nadu government on May 15, 2022, but the government did not release the report to the public until October 2022, two months after the contents of the report were published by Frontline, leading to public pressure on the matter. Days after the report was tabled in the assembly, four low-ranking police personnel were placed under suspension.The police notice asked Ilangovan to appear before the Inspector of Police B-3 police station, which is located on the premises of the Tamil Nadu Secretariat. TNM accessed a copy of the police notice dated April 18, 2023, which stated, “In connection with the above-mentioned complaint, the Frontline fortnightly magazine editor should appear before the B-3 police station inspector for investigation and disclose relevant details.”The Official Secrets Act, 1923, states that the complaint can only be given by a person or an officer who is specially empowered by the government. As per Section 13(3) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, “No court shall take cognisance of any offence under this Act unless upon complaint made by order of, or under authority from, the (appropriate government) or some officer empowered by the government on this behalf." So why was a lawyer's complaint accepted? There are no clear answers. TNM spoke to police officers in different hierarchies and none of them were able to explain exactly what the police inquiry was about. A top officer told TNM that he was “not aware of any such investigation”. Another officer said, “It’s a highly confidential inquiry,” and told this reporter not to ask for further details.When TNM inquired about the complainant Manikandan, the police refused to share details, citing the confidential nature of their inquiry. TNM also visited advocate Manikandan’s address mentioned in the police notice as ‘Sait Colony, Egmore, Chennai’ and found that Manikandan had vacated his office five years ago. A neighbour told TNM that advocate Manikandan had a dispute with the landlord. “This address does not belong to him anymore,” the neighbour said.In response to the police notice, The Hindu Group Publishing Private Limited replied on May 11, 2023, to the Inspector of Police, B-3 Police Station, that the document published by Frontline was not a classified or secret document. “The subject is outside the scope of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. The sections averred in the complaint preferred by the complainant do not, by any stretch of imagination, disclose any office. The provision of the Official Secrets Act has no application to the report published by Justice Aruna Jagadeesan,” read the legal reply.The Hindu Group’s legal department further said, “We wish to state that the details were revealed to us from sources that are confidential, and journalistic norms do not permit us to disclose the same. Further, we wish to state that we have not sourced the matter through any illegal means.”They also questioned the locus standi of the complainant. “The complainant has no locus-standi to prefer such a complaint and he is not the authority to decide/confirm that the report is a classified report or that it attracts the provisions of the Official Secret Act.” After the legal department of The Hindu Group issued their reply, the police did not go ahead with the inquiry. Henri Tiphagne, Executive Director of People’s Watch, a human rights organisation, told TNM that the police had no business summoning the editor of a magazine without an FIR, and that due procedure had not been followed in this case. “This is nothing but a clear attempt by the police to threaten the journalist,” Henri added.Henri also said that there is a pattern in which the police department has been functioning to protect its own and target activists and journalists. In the Ambasamudram custodial torture case, the government machinery had been trying to protect IPS officer Balveer Singh, who was accused of breaking the teeth of crime suspects. “There is a gang of officers who do not respect the rule of law, who are put in high positions, and who have taken away the Home portfolio from the Chief Minister and have caused havoc for this present government and are continuing to do so,” he said.Speaking to TNM, Ilangovan Rajasekaran said that his report has embarrassed someone and has put the DMK government in an awkward position. This is a reactionary attitude, he said. “I don’t know who Manikandan is or what his political affiliations are. Why should the police issue summons to a journalist who is simply doing his job?"Ilangovan also said that in one day, two judicial commission reports were tabled in the Tamil Nadu Assembly in October 2022. One was the Justice Aruna Jagadeesan Commission report, and the other was the Justice Arumughaswamy Commission report, which was constituted to probe the circumstances leading to the death of former Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa. “There was no debate or discussion on both of these reports in the Assembly. Both DMK and AIADMK are not bothered about these reports and are now targeting the journalist and trying to find out how the report got leaked. I have not received any further information from the police regarding the case,” he added.Why no action against cops? Meanwhile, on November 3, a division bench of Justices J Nisha Banu and N Mala sought an explanation from the Tamil Nadu government on what action has been taken 'in terms of prosecution and disciplinary action' based on the recommendations of the Justice Aruna Jagadeesan Commission. The state government is expected to file a reply by November 17, 2023. A DMK leader told TNM that the government is facing a dilemma since those indicted by the Commission of Inquiry include top-ranking IPS officials who hold the posts of Additional Director General of Police (ADGP), Inspector General of Police, and Superintendent of Police. “The bureaucracy will never allow the government to take action against them. The political leadership does not want to antagonise the bureaucracy. This is the real situation,” he said.The Commission of Inquiry had indicted high-ranking police officers, namely, the then Inspector General of Police (South Zone) Sailesh Kumar Yadav; Deputy Inspector General of Police (Tirunelveli Range) Kapil Kumar C Saratkar; Superintendent of Police (Thoothukudi) P Mahenderan; Deputy SP Lingathirumaran; three inspectors; two sub-inspectors; one head constable; and seven constables. In its finding, the commission stated, “The conclusion becomes irresistible that there had been excess on the part of the police. The totality of the facts and circumstances would not suggest that the police had been acting in exercise of the right to private defence. As a matter of fact, it is not even the version of the police.” Presently, four police personnel, namely ADSP Thirumalai, sharp shooter Sudalaikannu, Shankar, who was the gunman of DIG Kapil Kumar Saratkar, and constable Satheesh Kumar, are under suspension. According to police sources, their suspension is yet to be revoked.A top bureaucrat told TNM that after the report was tabled in the Tamil Nadu Assembly, the commission’s recommendations were taken into consideration and it was decided that departmental action would be initiated against the police personnel and not criminal action as recommended by the Commission. However, this too was limited to four police personnel. “Nothing much has happened after that, a clarification has been sought from the IPS officers,” the officer said.Another police officer had something different to say. He pointed out that the findings of the Justice Aruna Jagadeesan Commission report were recommendatory in nature, and the Central Bureau of Investigation that carried out a criminal investigation has not charged the police officers or found fault with any of the police personnel involved in the firing incident. “Justice Aruna Jagadeesan Commission findings and the CBI findings are different. This is one of the reasons why the government is unable to proceed further," he said.Henri Tiphange said that MK Stalin, who is also the Home Minister of Tamil Nadu, has to act. “The Home Department is out of his hands, and therefore senior police officers and other bureaucrats are ensuring that action is not initiated. The Chief Minister has to wake up before it is too late,” said Henri.