Didn't come to Madurai on August 17: Sasikala Pushpa

Sasikala Pushpa admitted that she did not come to Madurai and put her signature in the Vakalat executed.

Published: 30th August 2016 03:45 AM  |   Last Updated: 30th August 2016 05:12 AM   |  A+A-

MADURAI : Appearing before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, on Monday, in connection with an Anticipatory Bail (AB) petition filed concerning a sexual harassment case, expelled AIADMK Rajya Sabha MP Sasikala Pushpa admitted that she did not come to Madurai and put her signature in the Vakalat executed to appoint a lawyer for arguing the case on her behalf.

Didn.jpgAfter returning from Singapore, Sasikala and her husband T Lingeswara Thilagam appeared as ordered by the court. When Justice V M Velumani questioned whether the MP came to the HC bench and put the signature in the Vakalat at Advocate Chamber 51 on August 17, Sasikala replied that she signed it in Delhi and that her husband had brought it to the temple city.

The petitioners’ counsel contended that with the intention of diverting the case, the police had given false information in the court that Thilagam had left the country on August 16. He left for Singapore only on August 18, the counsel claimed.

The Additional Advocate General (AAG) appearing for the government said executing Vakalat is not a ritual but should be done as per the guidelines. Since Sasikala herself has admitted her offence, the court should punish her, the AAG said.

In their anticipatory bail petition, Sasikala, along with Thilagam and son Pradeep Raja, said that based on a complaint given by her housemaid Banumathi, the Pudukottai All Women Police Station, Thoothukudi district, had booked them for alleged physical and sexual harassment. Stating that the allegations were false, the petitioners prayed that the court should give them anticipatory bail.

Earlier, the State government had objected saying that while Thilagam had gone to Singapore from Delhi on August 16, Sasikala left for the same country from Delhi the next day. But as per the Vakalat signed, the couple was present here on August 17. Following this, the HC had directed the couple to appear before it. When the petition was heard in the morning, Justice Velumani asked both the sides to place their submissions.

Maid Banumathi’s counsel contended that the petitioners had not only harassed her sexually but also her sister, who was a minor. Therefore, apart from the various sections, including the TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, the police have altered the case to include the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Stay up to date on all the latest Tamil Nadu news with The New Indian Express App. Download now
(Get the news that matters from New Indian Express on WhatsApp. Click this link and hit 'Click to Subscribe'. Follow the instructions after that.)

Comments

Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the newindianexpress.com editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on newindianexpress.com are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of newindianexpress.com or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. newindianexpress.com reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp