AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

        An outstanding police officer with an impeccable record of noble and self less public service called K Prem Kumar, formerly Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram, has been issued a notice for removal from public service under 3 (11) of the Constitution which empowers the Government to remove any employee without notice. Several criminal cases have been pending against him for the last 20 years and perhaps after taking due note of his unsurpassed record of service, the State Government have come to the conclusion that Prem Kumar is totally unfit for any post in the Police Department. An hour of crowded glory was reached by him only a few days ago when the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court upheld Six Months imprisonment earlier awarded to him by a lower fast track court in July 2003 on charges of torturing an ex-serviceman called Nallakaman at Vadapatti in Dindigul District.

        Soon after the DMK Government came to power in May 2006, Ravi Subramaniam, one of the accused in the Sankararaman murder case had alleged that Prem Kumar had asked him to escape from jail just to cause political embaressement to the DMK Government. The Government ordered an inquiry into Ravi Subramaniam's allegations and based on the findings Prem Kumar was suspended.

        It was Prem Kumar who was specially chosen by the AIADMK Government to investigate into the Sankararaman murder case in which Kanchi Sankaracharya was the prime accused. Why did the AIADMK Government choose this outstanding officer to deal with this politically foisted case? The answer is simple. Here is the exciting saga of Prem Kumar.

        In a writ petition was filed by John Joseph against the Government of Tamilnadu, State Home Secretary , Director General Of Police, Prem Kumar, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil and others, The High Court Of Judicature at Madras on 3 October 2002 in the Court of The Honourable Justice M. Karpaga-vinayakam (in Writ Petition No.15595 of 1998 and W.P.Nos.15596 and 18995 of 1997 and 1285, 1569, 1570 and 4283 of 1998 and W.M.P.No.24751 and 24752 of 1997 and 2256, 2257 and 6542 of 1998 W.P.Nos.15595 and 15596 of 1997), the Madras High court ordered that Prem Kumar and other police officials should be prosecuted. Honourable Justice Karpagavinayakam ordered as follows:

        (i)The first respondent, namely, the State of Tamilnadu is directed to launch prosecution through C.B.C.I.D. against Premkumar, former D.S.P., Special Branch, Nagercoil and Panneerselvam, former D.S.P. of Nagercoil Town, who were involved i he offences relating to the illegal custody of the injured persons and torture committed on them, especially on women, viz., witness No.4 Sahaya Rani and witness No.5 Femina Rose.

        (ii) On passing suitable orders by the State Government, the C.B.C.I.D. shall record the statement of the injured Femina Rose and register F.I.R. against Premkumar and Panneerselvam, the D.S.Ps. for the appropriate offences and shall record the statements of the other injured persons and other witnesses examined before the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, the Team of Doctors and any other witnesses to be produced and collect other materials, if any, and launch prosecution against the two named police officials by filing the final report before the appropriate Court within three months from the date of receipt of this order. On entertaining the said final report launching prosecution against the police officials concerned, the Court concerned would go on with the proceedings in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order.

        Honourable Justice Karpaga-vinayakam had also strongly indicted Prem Kumar, former Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil and Paneerselvam, former Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil in the following manner:

        'Next day at 11.00 a.m., all these people were taken to Maravankudiyiruppu Armed Reserve Police Camp. Again interrogation continued. Then, D.S.P. Premkumar asked Sahayarani as to whether John Joseph raped her and murdered Gilbert Raj. She said that such a thing had not taken place. Then, John Joseph was first beaten up. He denied the rape and murder. At that time, Premkumar, D.S.P. came near to Sahayarani and removed her saree and petticoat and threw them at the corner of the room. Then, he also tore the blouse and pulled her breasts. Premkumar,D.S.P. took lathi and fisted on her stomach as well as on her private parts. At that time, Panneerselvam, D.S.P. similarly removed the saree of Femina Rose. After tearing the blouse, he pulled her breasts and fisted on the chest with lathi. John Joseph and Gnankan, the father of Femina Rose prostrated before Premkumar.D.S.P. and Panneerselvam, D.S.P. requesting not to outrage the modesty of the ladies. They also said that they would give any statement as they dictated. Thereafter, their statements were recorded. Then, they were compelled to give the said statement to the Press. Video also was taken by the Press Reporters.'

        'If this sort of inhuman and ill-treatment in the name of interrogation by the police officers, that too at the D.S.P. level is allowed to go on, then there is no protection even to the persons who are innocent. When these atrocities were brought to the notice of this Court, certainly the powers of this Court have got to be exercised to give appropriate orders so that the members of the Law Enforcing Agency will know their limit. The people also would feel and hope that they would be protected as per the rights guaranteed under the Constitution by arms of law through the appropriate orders passed by this Court by invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.'

        'The role played by the police officers in this case would make this Court to think that these officials (Prem Kumar and Paneerselvam) have behaved like barbarians without giving any respect to the human dignity, that too with the ladies Sahayarani and Femina Rose who are regarded as sisters. As a matter of fact, these people were compelled to give statements to Press persons who took video'.This Court is unable to understand as to why the Press Reporters were allowed to take Video. Admittedly, the Video was not taken by the Law Enforcing Agency. Strangely, the Superintendent of Police has filed an affidavit before this Court in this writ petition stating that the Video was taken by the Press Persons in spite of the objection raised by the police. This statement of Superintendent of Police cannot be true. When the objection was raised by the police, how the Press Reporters could record statement of these injured persons through Video.

        When the AIADMK Government decided to implicate Kanchi Sankaracharya in the Sankararaman murder case in 2004, they chose Premkumar who had been 'criminally' indicted by the Madras High Court as detailed above for that 'nasty foisting operation', only because they were fully aware of the fact that Premkumar was in their bonded labour, and would be most willing to go down on his bended knees to get all the criminal cases ordered to be filed against him by the Madras High Court with the political patronage of Tamilnadu Government.

        It is a well known maxim in the world of criminal law that a crime repeats itself and a criminal repeats himself!! As an investigating officer, anyone can see that Premkumar used the same 'police' methods against the venerable Kanchi Sankaracharya as those he had deployed against John Joseph, Gnanakan, Sahayarani, Femina Rose in Nagercoil which was so graphically described by Justice Karpagavinayakam of Madras High Court. Premkumar of Nagercoil Video fame transformed himself into the super-cop of the planted Video operation against Kanchi Sankaracharya, backed by the fleeting and transitory might of the then Tamil Nadu Government.

        Within a month of the illegal arrest of Kanchi Sankaracharya in November 2004, the fire brand social activist and writer Radha Rajan wrote as follows in an article entitled 'Equal Before Which Law?' on December 16 2004 in the website http://www.vigilonline.com/interact/discuss/discuss.asp?plainSpeakId=21:

        'The Kanchi Acharya is confronting not just a neurotic Chief Minister and a hostile state but also a section of the judiciary which is, to put it mildly, not Caesar's wife. He is also confronting a section of the state police, specifically, the SP of Kancheepuram who has been damned by the Madras High Court itself and who has had a non-bailable warrant issued against him. The Chief Minister of course has several cases pending against her with regard to acquiring government property and amassing wealth disproportionate to her known sources of income. So, which among these worthies is qualified to judge the Acharya?'

        Two weeks earlier on 3 December 2004, in these very columns in News Today, in an article entitled Law-Enforcers or Just a Lawless Group? , I had observed as follows:

        'I am shocked and pained by the observations made by Ashok Singhal, Working President of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) International on the credentials of K. PremKumar Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram who is reported to be supervising the investigation of the Sankararaman murder case. He has made serious allegations against the concerned officer and in this context he has referred to the strictures and pronouncements made by the Madras High Court and certain other Courts of Law against the concerned officer. All the responsible and law abiding citizens of Tamilnadu are expecting that the Government of Tamilnadu in the Home Department would have these allegations properly verified immediately without any delay whatsoever.'

        'If Government of Tamilnadu do not act immediately then the confidence of the public in the investigation of the case initiated against Sankaracharya would not only be lost forever but also lead to a lawless environment of total public contempt for the Police Department.'