Tamils - a Trans State Nation..

"To us all towns are one, all men our kin.
Life's good comes not from others' gift, nor ill
Man's pains and pains' relief are from within.
Thus have we seen in visions of the wise !."
Tamil Poem in Purananuru, circa 500 B.C 

Home Whats New  Trans State Nation  One World Unfolding Consciousness Comments Search

Home > Tamils - a Nation without a State> Tamil Nadu > Tamil Nadu & the Tamil Eelam Freedom Struggle >  Divisional Bench of Chennai High Court sets aside Detention of  Director Seeman  

tamil nadu
& Tamil Eelam strugglE for freedom

Divisional Bench of Chennai High Court
sets aside Detention of  Director Seeman

17 April 2009

[see also Director Seeman Speaking on Velupillai Prabhaharan's Birthday,
 27 November 2007]

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 February 2009.

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 activities.

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.

 "Considering the 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.



Mail Us Copyright 1998/2009 All Rights Reserved Home