Tamil Nadu Police arrested Director Seeman on 27
February 2009 for speaking in support of LTTE, a banned organisation,
and for some of his comments when speaking on the Sri Lanka Tamils issue at
a public meeting organized by Thirunelvely Advocate's Bar Association on 17
Mr. Seeman was also charged with instigating violence amid youth and
thereby disturbing the peace. He was arrested under the
National Security Act (NSA). His brother appealed against his detention in the
Chennai High Court.
A Divisional Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Justice Elipe Dharma Rao and Justice C T
Selvam, quashed the detention orders on a Habeas Corpus Petition filed by S
James Peter, brother of Seeman.
Senior Advocate N Natrajan, who
appeared on behalf of Seeman, argued that he did not commit any offence
against the integrity and sovereignty of India and prayed for quashing of
the orders, detaining him under the NSA. He contended that according to the
judgments of the Supreme Court of India, if a person
did not have any intention or design to further the activities of any
terrorist organisation or indulge in terrorist acts it could not be termed
as unlawful activities.He contended that the Supreme Court had
noted that Parliament itself had defined a terrorist act as one that had to
be committed with a criminal intention. He claimed that the Supreme Court had
made it clear that proposing, inviting, assisting in arranging and managing
a meeting without intention or design "to further the activities of any
terrorist organisation or commit terrorists acts" did not amount to unlawful
Though the Additional Advocate
General Ramaswamy opposed the quashing of the NSA order, the Bench allowed
the plea filed by the director.
The judges ruled that Mr.Seeman's speech was neither detrimental to national security nor
against national unity and he cannot be detained under NSA.
facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that mere delivery of
a speech in a meeting would not tantamount to form unlawful activities and
attract sec 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Unlawful Assembly Prevention Act and
thereby affect the sovereignty of the country," the Bench said.