KOCHI: The High Court has questioned whether the government has a double standard when taking action against gatherings that block the road. The police removed the tarpaulin erected by ASHA workers protesting in front of the Secretariat. However, the court pointed out that no action was taken against the CPM protest by erecting a tent on the road in Kannur. The reference was made by a division bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice S. Murali Krishna while considering contempt of court petitions against the gathering held in Vanchiyur, Thiruvananthapuram, which blocked traffic.

The government explained that the one in Kannur was a protest, and there were some limits for a live event. It was informed that a case has been registered.

The court reminded that the one in Vanchiyur was a party area meeting, and a stage was set up on the road, and a play was performed. When police tried to remove the tent, the party representative stopped it. The court asked what action was taken against him. It is not enough to register an FIR. There are strong sections in the Motor Vehicle Act. There are also laws against the destruction of public property. It's important to assess what action has been taken in this regard. The High Court also directed the government to submit a report within a week stating which all sections have been imposed on the violators in the petitions under consideration of the court and what further action has been taken.

Court dissatisfied with Chief Secretary's response

Chief Secretary Saradha Muraleedharan submitted an additional affidavit to the court yesterday, stating that a new circular was issued in January against events that obstruct traffic. The Chief Secretary reiterated that a case has been registered against 500 people who are visible in Vanchiyoor, 149 people in the Congress dharna in Kochi, and 10 people in the Joint Council blockade and that the investigation is ongoing. She informed that there was no traffic obstruction in the Vanitha Jwala Junction event in Balaramapuram.

The High Court said that this does not seem to be a sufficient explanation. The affidavits of all the parties will be examined. The court also said orally that arguments should be made and that it would direct that violators be prosecuted if necessary.