- (1.) On 24th April, 1992 this Court passed an interim order staying the operation of the notice 15 dated 10th April, 1992 from the Speaker of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly to the petitioner-journalist and also stayed the operation of the warrant of arrest issued for the arrest and production of the petitioner before the Assembly.
(2.) By the present application petitioner has expressed the apprehension that despite this order of stay the State Police, in disobedience of the order of this Court, is attempting to arrest to the petitioner. It is averred that a team of policemen has been specially deputed and has arrived at Delhi for the purpose. The averments in support of this apprehension are, however, not specific and are sketchy. There is no specific averment such as would require to be traversed by the police in any return that they may be called upon to file. We are afraid the apprehensions of the petitioner, however strongly expressed, that the policemen will transgress the order often, this Court and lay hands on the petitioner may not be justified. Sri Sorabjee learned senior counsel hastened to say that petitioner has reasonable and genuine apprehensions in this behalf and that specific grounds engendering the apprehension would be placed before Court in a further affidavit. The petitioner is at liberty to do so.
(3.) The order of this Court staying the operation of the warrant, which by necessary implication interdicts any power to arrest the petitioner, is directed, amongst others, to the Home Secretary, the Director General of Police of the State of Tamil Nadu and the Commissioner of Police of Madras. We have no reason to entertain any doubt that these officers, conversant as they must be presumed to be with the constitutional mandate to act in aid of this Court and the duty to conform thereto, would embark upon an adventure of wilful disobedience of its orders which may amount to a serious case of criminal contempt of Court. Article 144 enjoins upon them, as indeed upon all authorities civil and judicial in the territory of India, to act in aid of this Court. We have no doubt that these authorities who are high in the administrative hierarchy would not ignore this constitutional mandate and duty. That apart the petitioner is said to be now in Delhi and it would be the highest duty of the Commissioner of Police and all concerned Administrative authorities in Delhi to prevent any such infraction of the orders of this Court within their jurisdictions, if duly brought to their notice. We are entitled to expect that these authorities will act within the bounds of their constitutional duties and cause no affront to the dignity and authority of this Court. In this view no further orders, at this stage, appear necessary.;