Senior Counsel Mr.S.Prabakaran. The Senior counsel vehemently contended that the Hon’ble Third Judge can only decide the point of conflict and cannot go beyond the point of conflict that arise from the Hon’ble Division Bench. The senior counsel relying on the Rule 36 of Letters Patent contended that in the case of split verdict, the 3rd Judge who requires to answer the reference should cull out the point of difference and only answer the same.

[06/06, 14:15] sekarreporter1: 1. Today the Hon’ble High Court of Madras comprising of Hon’ble Justice Mr.G.Jayachandran heard the reference raised by the Hon’ble Division Bench in Savukku Sankar’s H.C.P. after the split verdict of the Division Bench.

2. The intervening petition filed by Veeralakshmi, one of the defacto-complaiant was represented by Senior Counsel Mr.S.Prabakaran. The Senior counsel vehemently contended that the Hon’ble Third Judge can only decide the point of conflict and cannot go beyond the point of conflict that arise from the Hon’ble Division Bench. The senior counsel relying on the Rule 36 of Letters Patent contended that in the case of split verdict, the 3rd Judge who requires to answer the reference should cull out the point of difference and only answer the same. The senior counsel further relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Meghala –Vs- ED, a similar HCP case where arrest was challenged and contended that in the said case 3rd Judge who dealt with the reference after the split verdict from the Hon’ble Division Bench only answered the points of conflict and directed the matter to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice in turn to be placed before the Division Bench for deciding custody period which was not answered by the division bench. Relying the aforesaid judgement Senior counsel Mr.Prabakaran, contended that the points of conflict only be answered and anything beyond it cannot be decided. It was argued by the senior counsel that in this case the only point of conflict is in regard to issuance of notice and opportunity for the Respondent to file their counter. He further argued that the detenue Savukku Sankar is a person who threatens the Government and makes abusive remarks against Police officials, women, court officials and moreover against Judiciary, such person does not require any red carpet by this court. The Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner opposed the locus of the intervenor for which senior counsel Mr.Prabakaran responded that the locus of victim has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several decisions. The Senior further pointed out that one of the Hon’ble Judges of the Division Bench himself has observed that the matter usually would take a recourse of four weeks’ notice after rule nisi, but due to some persons adverse influence to adjourn the matter, the matter was dealt on merits to not let his agenda satisfied. The senior counsel for the intervenor contended that this aspect should be taken into consideration as to why the matter was decided on the same day and it would mean that the said matter was not decided on merits but was decided only to not let the agenda of unknown persons be satisfied. The Learned Senior counsel further questioned the urgency in the matter and submitted that the detenue is indeed a danger to the peace and tranculity. Hearing the submissions the matter was passed over to post-lunch session for filing counter by the official Respondent and for further hearing.
   [06/06, 14:15] sekarreporter1: 👍