The Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) has filed a petition in the Madras High Court seeking action against Chennai Police Commissioner A. Arun for allegedly favoring the ruling DMK by granting swift permission for a protest against the Governor, while denying permission for protests by other parties, including the PMK.The petition, submitted by PMK propaganda secretary P.K. Sekar, alleged that the police chief violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. Sekar contended that the Chennai Police Commissioner allowed the DMK to hold a protest without adhering to the prescribed procedures, while PMK’s requests for similar permissions were repeatedly denied.
Sekar cited a specific instance where his party sought to hold a protest against the state government regarding the Anna University sexual assault incident. The PMK alleged inaction on the part of the DMK regime and planned to criticize the government over its failure to safeguard citizens. However, their request was denied under Section 41 of the Madras City Police Act, 1988, which requires a five-day notice to conduct agitations.
The petitioner argued that despite the five-day notice requirement, the police commissioner granted immediate permission for the DMK’s protest against Governor R.N. Ravi. The protest was organized in response to the Governor skipping parts of the state government’s prepared address during the Assembly session.
“The permission for the DMK protest was granted within a day of the Assembly incident, violating Section 41 of the Madras City Police Act. This is a clear case of bias and a breach of constitutional equality,” the petitioner stated.
As a democratic opposition party, the PMK claimed it has the responsibility to criticize the government for its lapses. However, the police’s alleged favoritism towards the ruling party has hindered their ability to perform this duty.
Advocate K. Balu from PMK made an urgent mention of the matter before Justice P. Velmurugan, seeking an immediate hearing. However, the judge declined to hear the case, clarifying that it would be taken up once it is officially listed.
