intro:
The High Court of Bombay at Goa last week reserved its judgement on a petition filed by Ram Sene leader Pramod Muthalik challenging the order of Goa government banning him from entering the State. The Goan takes a closer look at the arguments made by Muthalik's advocate and the public prosecutor
1. Pramod Muthalik been visiting the State over the last 10 years for religious purposes and over this period there has not been a single case of breach of peace registered against him or his organisation in the State till date
2. The government used Section 144 (2) of the CrPC meant only to be used in emergencies and that preventive provisions were put in place without serving him a notice which is mandatory process of natural justice. Failing to serve the notice has denied him an opportunity to be heard. There was no emergency situation from the day he attacked the pub in Mangalore till date
3. Muthalik is willing to abide by any terms and conditions that the administrative authorities may so wish to impose on him
4. Prohibitory orders issued under section 144 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are meant to be only temporary in nature, but the State government has through repeated unlawful extensions introduced a permanent ban on Muthalik's entry in the State.
5. Repeated reissuing prohibitory orders by the North and South Goa deputy collectors was a misuse of the provision to place a permanent ban on him.
6. Orders under Section 144 (2), were meant to be only used in emergency cases.
7. The government should have acted under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, which only the Central Government is empowered to Act under and the State can only submit a report to the Centre asking for a ban
8. The government has acted selectively against the Ram Sene when there were several other anti-social elements within Goa including drug peddlers, thugs and other trouble makers, who haven’t yet invited any ban.
1. It wasn’t true that the State government didn’t have any evidence against Muthalik. The government has seen his past conduct in other States. Further Muthalik’s own petition incriminates his intentions of creating law and order trouble in Goa by saying that he wants to come to the State to indulge in socio-political activities like that of raising the issue of love jihad, pub culture, removal of Bangladeshi immigrants in Goa, menace of drugs and liquor and other ‘western influences.’
2. The State government has the machinery to take care of the issues raised by Muthalik -- drug menace, dealing with illegal immigrants, coerced marriages, without his help. The government is committed to upholding the law and the presence of Muthalik wasn’t needed for these purposes.
3. Section 144 (2) does not make it mandatory to serve Muthalik and his associates a notice before issuing such orders and notices have to be served only if practicable. The publication of the prohibitory orders in the official gazette were itself a form of notice against him.
4. Further Muthalik made an application before the district magistrates to visit Goa for 10 days for religious purposes at which point of time he was given a hearing and his application rejected after the police gave a negative report.
5. The district magistrates did not repeatedly issue prohibitory orders but the orders were issued only once and then extended by the State government, and not the district magistrates.
6. The issue of acting under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act does not arise because it wasn’t the Sri Ram Sene that was banned but only its leader and his associates.
7) Muthalik accused the State government of acting with malafide intentions without saying who was acting with malafide intentions or what was the evidence that it was done with malafide intentions.
----
Section 144 (2) of CrPC: An order under this section may, in cases of emergency or in cases where the circumstances do not admit of the serving in due time of a notice upon the person against whom the order is directed, be passed ex parte.”
Quoting Section 144 (4) of the CrPC: “No order under this section shall remain in force for more than two months from the making thereof: Provided that, if the State Government considers it necessary so to do for preventing danger to human life, health or safety or for preventing a riot or any affray, it may, by notification, direct that an order made by a magistrate under this section shall remain in force for such further period not exceeding six months...
