45. Not all murders are given capital punishment. We look into the
circumstances and all related aspects under which the act was done.
Those words used in the message are not said under emotion. People use such words during quarrel and later they may regret but putting things in writing or typing means they know the consequences and do it.
46. Forwarded message is equal to accepting the message and
endorsing the message.
MADRAS HIGH COURT
PRONOUNCED ON : 10.05.2018
CRL. OP No.12229 of 2018
S. RAMATHILAGAM, J.
arrest at the hands of the respondent herein in connection with the case in
Crime No. 148 of 2018 registered for the alleged offences punishable
under Sections 504, 505(1) (c), 509 of IPC read with Section 4 of the Tamil
Nadu Prohibition of Women Harrassment Act.
2. The petitioner has stated in his affidavit that he is a diploma
holder in Mechanical Engineering with Post Graduate Diploma in Air
Conditioning and Refrigeration and further he has also stated that he is a
Sound Recordist, Programme Producer, Still Photographer, Videographer,
Editor and Director, Play Writer, Producer, Television - Film and Theatre
artiste playing lead roles.
3. In subsequent paragraphs of his affidavit, the petitioner has
stated his job, his service to the society and his talents in the field of drama
and film making, and on the whole he has given a very big list regarding his
qualities and his position in the society and his attitude towards the public
in helping the people as a Philanthropist. The petitioner has also stated
that he has great respect for the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India and his
way of working and further he stated his position as a long standing
politician attached with Bharathiya Janatha Party. He is also doing service
by way of probagating the great and noble ideas of our great leaders.
4. He is also in the habit of sharing his views through social media
like Whats App, Facebook and Twitter strictly in constructive and healthy
way and he used to express his views with great discipline and decorum
without any defamatory, insult to individuals or targetting any groups, which
is important to maintain the Freedom of Expression as guaranteed under
Article 19 (1) (a) of our Constitution.
5. He has further stated that there are exchanges of words, printed
materials, messages through public domains, like WhatsApp, Facebook,
Messenger, Twitter etc. and through medias even without any basic
decency, morality, ethics, outraging religious feelings of others in particular
making allegations and counter allegations against dignity of women even
without leaving Mother and Mother language and Motherland, outraging
modesty of woman by making allegations which are defamatory in nature
blasphemous, offencive, dubious and pervert. Such allegations are made
even without basic and proper understanding on the concept of freedom of
speech and expression.
6. The petitioner further stated that when there were threats to
soverignity, unity and integrity of our mother India, being a law abiding
citizen, he used to express his views and opinion in press and social
medias.
7. Further, he has stated that he used to forward certain messages,
which he has received through Social Medias, with a bonafide intention of
bringing the same to the public awareness irrespective whether he is
agreeing with the said opinion or views finds place in the said post. Simply,
he used to forward the same for the sake of viewers at large. On
19.4.2018, he has received a message from one Tirumalai Sa, who has
forwarded the message to him in his group, who used to forward patrotic
and spiritual messages regularly to his Facebook account and those
messages used to be always constructive and healthy. On 19.4.2018, he
has received a message from the said Facebook account under the
bonafide impression and forwarded the said message without reading the
contents and knowing the nature of the said message as usual, which
resulted in over confidence. But, later it was pointed out by his friend that
the said content was abusive one and he has also felt that it is not
acceptable to him and condemnable in nature and he is against the said
views found in the forwarded message and immediately, he removed the
same. But, due to malafide intention of personal vendetta and politcal
vengeance, some mischevious people are spreading the screen shot /
photoshop of the deleted post even without understanding that it is
offensive. He also tendered, his apology, though he is not personally
responsible for the said wrong.
8. Further, some illegal things happened by way of people from
medias / journalists who gathered and attacked his house by way of
throwing huge stones, wooden and iron rods in the presence of police
people and the police personnel were also not in a position to control the
gang due to insufficient strength. A false complaint was made at the
instigation of third persons before the respondent by making baseless
allegations as if he has defamed the whole press fraternity in particular,
outraging of the modesty of the women, in which there is no iota of any
truth in it.
9. The petitioner further states that there is no ingredients for the
alleged offence under Section 505 of IPC and mensrea, which is a
necessary ingreditent for the alleged offence. Further he states that
because of the registering of the case, under the above Section, he has
strong reasons to believe and apprehending arrest in the hands of the
respondent at any point of time. His grievance is that he has very good
reputation. He is a public personality; he himself and his old sick mother
are put to mental agony and humility and he has not committed any offence
alleged against him. Hence, the petitioner has sought for enlarging him in
bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.148 of 2018.
10. There are 9 intervening petitioners, who represent themselves as
Journalist, editors and social workers etc. and this Court is of the view to
allow all the intervening petitions and accordingly all the intervening
petitions are allowed.
11. In Crl. M.P. No.6873 of 2018, the petitioner is a journalist and
Editor of bi-monthly Kungumam Thozhi, Dinakaran publications. In Crl.
M.P. No.6874 of 2018, the petitioner states himself as the CEO of Tamil
Nadu Journalist and Protection and Welfare Association. In Crl. M.P.
No.6875 of 2018, the petitioner is a Chief Reporter in Nakeeran Weekly
Investigation Journalist for the past 30 years and he is member of Chennai
Press Club. In Crl. M.P. No.6883 of 2018, the petitioner claims himself as
a law graduate enrolled before the Tamil Nadu Bar Council shortly and she
is the social activist following the principles of 'Thanthai Periyar' and the
petitioner, in Crl. M.P.No. 6884 of 2018 claims himself as a Social Worker
and Press Reporter, who was earlier a Reporter and subsequently
promoted as Chief Reporter in the Tamil Bi-weekly Nakkeeran during the
year 1993 to 2007 and thereafter as Chief Reporter in Tamil Daily
Dinakaran. The petitioner in Crl. M.P. No.6896 of 2018 states that she is
the State General Secretary of All India Democratic Women's Association.
The petitioners/intervenors in Crl. M.P. No.6907 of 2018 states themselves
as practicising Advocates before this Court and also social activist working
for the plight of welfare of the women. In Crl. M.P. No.6927 of 2018
petitioner claims himself to be a news reporter / news reader working for
the past several months and he is also the President of the Tamil News
Anchors Association. The petitioner in Crl. M.P. No.6872 of 2018 who is a
Journalist has stated that many people have admired the working and
involvement of the women journalist in their field and young women are
joining in this profession. The 1st respondent with a crooked and ill
motivated mind has made a posting on 19.04.2018 in his Facebook page
about the women journalist and the posting is as follows :-
"Recently this disgusting fact has come out through
complaints that women cannot become reporters or
anchors unless they sleep with top bosses. and with these faces
they come out to ask questions to the Governors".
12. This petitioner further states that the posting of the first
respondent is highly condemnable and deserves to be dealt with iron hand.
The unruly posting about the women has very much hurt the feeling of the
people and also created a situation of abnormality and restlessness among
the people. The petitioner also further states that the first respondent has
been continuously making such abusive words in all earlier incidents which
were condemned and received objections from the people of all quarters of
the society.
13. The petitioner in Crl. M.P.No.6873 of 2018 has also mentioned
the statement of the accused in his Facebook is as follows :-
(Vernaculars omitted)
14. This petitioner has also stated that the accused being a close
associate of Mr.Banwarilal Purohit and being a party man and also closely
related to the Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary Girija Vaidyanathan. When the
occurence took place on 19.04.2018, 2nd respondent police did not take
action against him and only after protest by the public and by the press
people, the 2nd respondent has registered the case.
15. In all the intervening petitions, the petitioners have stated the
exact posting of the accused made in the Facebook and stated that the
accused/1st respondent had wilfully committed the offence with some
sound anti-social back ground. The act involved in this issue is the one
derogating the female of this land, confined to their work ethics and further
extending a support to the alleged offender he is too serious to be
investigated under custody as sparing the same would cause dire
miscarriage of justice and an easy flee from the eyes of law.
16. It is also invaribly stated in all the intervening petitions that the
said Facebook post was blocked immediately before the lodging of the
complaint. The qualification of the petitioner itself substantiates that his
post could never be accidental and the act of the petitioner herein is rightly
lightened to be a deliberate act.
17. The other petitioner in his intervening petition has stated that the
post in the Facebook containing full of derogatory terms against the
modesty of the women.
18. The petitioner in one intervening petition being a lady has stated
that she cannot digest the wounds sustained through this post in the
Facebook. The accused being a Senior Citizen should know how to use
words when making any post about women. Hence, the action of the
accused is wanton and he intentionally forwarded the message and after
strong opposition from the general public, he clearly deleted the same in
his Facebook account.
19. The petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.6874 of 2018 has stated that
because of the blocking of the post the whereabouts of the original identity
of the co-offender or his accomplish is put to stake.
20. The petitioner in another intervening petition has stated that the
act of the accused not only outraged the modesty of a women but the
whole fraternity is very much affected. The accussed is a powerful and
influential person with money and man power and he will escape from the
action of the Government.
21. Another petitioner in intervening petition has also stated that no
sane person will host any such message which will affect the modesty of a
women particularly on the women journalist. The words used by thë
accused has been quoted as " the women journalist obtained news from
VIPs by sharing bed is highly defamatory, derogative and mischievous".
22. In normal law, a person doing an illegal act and thereafter tender
apology is not accepted and he will be proceeded according to law. But in
this issue no proper action has been taken against the accused.
23. The petitioner in Crl. M.P. No.6883 of 2018 has stated that the
accused in Crime No.148 of 2018 is a famous Drama Artist, who was
earlier in AIADMK party and now an active member of a political party viz.,
B.J.P. He also involved in the Sankara Raman murder case.
24. The other petitioner who represent himself as the State General
Secretary, All India Democratic Women's Association states that there are
so many emininent women who took part in the freedom movement and
many women worked for the upliftment and betterment of women as a
whole to remove the gender bias to fight for democracy equal rights and
emancipation of women for a society free from exploitation. This petitioner
also states that the said posting of the Facebook is highly condemanable
deserves to be dealt with iron hand. The journalist have expressed the
views that it is cold blooded murder in broad day light. The women with
great difficulty are trying to establish themselves in the field of journalism
and media. The act of the accused is a calculative mind to suppress the
women journalist, who show individuality and who expose injustice on the
rocks. Hence, all the intervening petitioners strongly objected for allowing
the anticipatory bail application.
25. Heard both sides.
26. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the
respondent Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime, Central Crime Branch has
registered a case against him under Sections 504, 505 (1) (c), 509 of IPC
read with Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act.
The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
complaint reveal no offence under Section 505 (1) (c) of the IPC and it is
further argued that a message received by the petitioner from certain
individual has been forwarded by him and he is not its author and the
petitioner has not committed any of the offences alleged against him.
27. On the side of the intervening petitioners, it is argued that the
petitioner is not an illiterate man to simply pass the message without
reading the same. Further it is argued that when already there are incidents
happening in the State derogating the modesty of women the post made by
the accused in the Facebook, further worsened the situation and it affects
the core of the women in entireity.
28. It is further argued by the petitioners that the post in the
Facebook is made by a highly qualified person in all fields and he is also a
member of censor board as per his own averment made in the affidavit.
He cannot make such an act of passing the message without ascertaining
the quality of the same.
29. On the side of the prosecution, it is argued that the first
respondent has registered the case based on a complaint preferred by the
State General Secretary, Tamil Nadu Journalist and Protection
Association, who in his complaint has stated that when an adverse remark
made by the women reporter on the act of the Governor by which the
accused Actor S.Ve Shekar annoyed with the statement has passed a
message affecting the modesty of the said Journalist Lakshmi
Subramaniam. The very message post by the accused affects the entire
democratic society in which the journalist are like pillars of the same. The
prosecution strongly objected for allowing this petition.
30. The 2nd respondent has received the complaint and registered
the FIR based on the legal opinion given to the Central Crime Branch. It is
argued by the prosecution that the Facebook account made a defamatory
statement which insult the modesty of the women in the field of Journalism.
In the opinion, it is said that the contents reveals the reporters were "illtreat
rascals without common sense and the reporter concerned was also not an
exemption and they could become reporters only by sharing bed with
familar persons". The words employed in the message are in the nature of
insulting the reporters. Hence, the respondents has registered the case
under Section 504, 505 (1) (c), 509 of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Women Harrassment Act, 2002.
31. On the side of the petitioner, it is argued that the offence under
Sections 504, 509 and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women
Harrassment Act, 2002. are bailable and only offence under Section 505
(1) (c) is non bailable but the said offence is not made out in this case.
Section 504 (IPC) says Intentional insult with intent to provoke
breach of the peace.
Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives
provocation to any person,intending or knowing it to be
likely that such provocation will cause him to break the
public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
505 (1) Whoever makes publishes or circulates any statement,
rumour or report
(c) with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite,
any class or community of persons to commit any
offence against any other class or community,
509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman
: Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word,
makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such
word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen,
by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, [shall be
punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years, and also with fine]
Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women
Harrassment Act.
(a) "harassment" means any indecent conduct or act
by a man which causes or is likely to cause intimidation,
fear, shame or embarassment, including abusing or
causing hurt or nuisance or assault or use of force".
32. It is argued by the petitioner that based on the case law reported
in 1962 Supp (2) SCR 769 AIR 1962 sc 955 : 1962 2 Cri LJ 103 Kedar
Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, in which the main question in contraversy is
"whether Sections 124 - A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code have
become void in view of the provisions of the Article 19 (1) (a) of the
Constitution it was held that "it is only necessary to add a few observations
with respect to the constitutionality of Section 505 of the Indian Penal
Code. With reference to each of the three clauses of the section, it will be
found that the gravamen of the offence is making, publishing or circulating
any statement, rumour or report (a) with intent to cause or which is likely to
cause any member of the Army, Navy or Air Force to mutiny or otherwise
disregard or fail in his duty as such; or (b) to cause fear or alarm to the
public or a section of the public which may induce the commission of an
offence against the State or against public tranquility; or (c) to incite or
which is likely to incite one class or community of persons to commit an
offence against any other class or community. It is manifest that each one
of the constitutent elements of the offence under Section 505 has
reference to, and a direct effect on, the security of the State or public order.
Hence, these provisions would not exceed the bounds of reasonable
restrictions on the right of freedom of speech and expression. It is clear,
therefore, that clause (2) of Article 19 clearly saves the section from the
vice of unconstitutionality"
33. Hence offence under 505 (1) (c) is not made out.
34. On the side of the intervening petitioners, it is unanimously
argued that the petitioner with all his qualities and efficiency in number of
fields and also a highly influential person holding support from the party he
belongs, has made such a derogatory statement pointing a "Women
Journalist and generalising women journalist as immoral persons, who
become journalist only by way of immoral conducts". Further argument
advanced by the intervening petitioners are that "this is a premediated aid
campagin by the 1st respondent (accused) against the women journalist
and in future it will be extended to working women of all fields who have
individually raised up against injustice or expose justice. This act was done
by the accused deliberately with ulterior motive being a member of
censorboard for films the accused says that he has shared the offensive
post without reading.
35. Further it is argued that petitioner who mentions the person one
Thirumalai Sa may be shadow account of the first respondent and only a
detailed investigation by the police will reveal the truth. It is also further
argued by the intervening petitioners that inspite of mass objections from
the people and only after wide spreads protests and condemns, the
respondent has registered the F.I.R. and has not arrested the accused till
date when the accused is still appearing before various visual media and
television channels continuing to be active in all his social media and still
roaming freely using his nexus with the leaders of ruling party.
36. It was unanimously argued by the intervening petitioners that the
2nd respondent is so inactive in proceeding with this accused which
creates a doubt in the society that whether Court of law is applied equally
to all members of the society. It is also argued by the prosecution that the
investigation is initiated.
37. On perusal of the records and also the argument advanced by
both sides, the offence committed by the petitioner is one against the
constitutional rights of women. "When the Indian constitution was
formulated, it granted equal rights to women, considering them legal
citizens of the country as an equal to men in terms of freedom and
opportunity".
38. It is also to be remembered that Indian women, who fought as
equals as men in the nationalist struggle, the act of the petitioner smashes
and affects the feeling of each person. On hearing the arguments of the
intervening petitioners, the petitioner has hurt the feeling not only the
individual but the feeling of each reporter. The said post in the Facebook
created a disturbance in the society and there is also a designed attempt
on the part of the accused by keeping himself behind the scene and
instigating the persons. It is also observed that only after protest by all
group of people, the case was registered and immediately after registering
the case, the post in the Facebook also blocked by the accused. It is
argued by the petitioners that this shows the ulterior motive of the accused.
The intervening petitioner has expressed their grievance that the manner of
investigation is being made in this case affect the feeling of the entire
society and the feeling of the society has to be considered.
39. The intervening petitioner has argued that the accused was
making a statement in the media that "jkpHe; hL nghyp!; tff; w;w
nghyP!;", and the said second respondent has allowed the 1st respondent /
accused to wander freely because of his influence in many source.
40. It is argued by the intervening petitioners that when the said
derogatory statements were made by one Thirumalai Sa, the investigation
agency should find out the real culprit and who are all the persons involved
in along with the accused should be properly investigated.
41. The intervening petitioners by quoting the case law in AIR 2014
SC 1591 in Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan V. Union of India and others
wherein it was held as under:-
A. Constitution of India, Art. 141, Art. 50 - Judicial activism
- Power of Court to issue directions / guidelines to deal with
certain situation - Exerciseable only in situation when there exists
total legal vacuum.
C) Constitution of India, Art.15, Art.19, Art. 21, Art 32 -
Hate speeches - Directions / guidelines to regulate - Refused to
be isued as penal laws provide sufficient remedy to curb
menance of hate speeches - Enforcement of law is however
lacking - Enforcing agencies directed to effectively enforce law -
Human rights commission can also initiate action against authors
of hate speeches.
Directions have been issued by the Court only when there
has been a total vaccum in law, i.e. complete absence of active
law to provide for the effective enforcement of a basic human
right. In case there is inaction on the part of the executive for
whatsoever reason, the Court has stepped in, in exercise of its
constitutional obligations to enforce the law. In case of vaccum
of legal regime to deal with a particular situation the Court may
issue guidelines to provide absolution till such time as the
legislature acts to perform its role by acting proper legislation to
cover the field. Thus, direction can be issued only in a situation
where the will of the elected legislature has not yet been
expressed (Para 22)
6. The Supreme Court of Canada in Saskatchewan
(Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11,
succeeded in bringing out the "human rights" obligations leading
to control on publication of "hate speeches" for protection of
human rights defining the expression "hate speech" observing
that the definition of "hatred" set out in Canada (Human Rights
Commission) v. Taylor, (1990) 3 SCR 892, with some
modifications, provides a workable approach to interpreting the
word "hatred" as is used in legislative provisions prohibiting hate
speech. Three main prescriptions must be followed. First, courts
must apply the hate speech prohibition objectively. The question
courts must ask is whether a reasonable person, aware of the
context and circumstances, would view the expression as
exposing the protected group to hatred. Second, the legislative
term "hatred" or "hatred or contempt" must be interpreted as
being restricted to those extreme manifestations of the emotion
described by the words "detestation" and "vilification".
8. Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Edn. defines the
expression 'hate speech' as under :
"Speech that carries no meaning other than the expression
of hatred for some group, such as a particular race, especially in
circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke
"violence".
42. Hence, it is argued by the intervening petitioners that ""the
law can be summarized to the effect that if any action is taken by any
person which is arbitrary unreasonable or otherwise in contravention of
any statutory provisions or penal law, the Court can grant relief
keeping in view the evidence before it and considering the statutory
provisions involved. It is further argued that the route of the problem is
not the absence of laws but rather a lack of their effective execution.
Therefore, the executing as well as Civil society has to perform its role
in enforcing the already exisitng legal regime.
43. The intervening petitioners who are all news reporter / news
reader, State General Secretary of All India Democratic Women's
Association, the practising Advocates before this Court, member of
accrediatation committee of reporters and President of Chennai Union of
Journalist, Chief Reporter in Nakkeran Weekly, Investigation Journalist
and member of Chennai press club all have unanimously argued that the
words in the post by the accused not only affect the lady press reporters
but other ladies and the whole fraternity. The accused has violated the
provisions under Article 19(1) (a) of our Constitution and further the
accused is under the support of the political party and he is also under the
shield of higher official, who is harbouring the accused and restraining the
police from proceeding with the case. When there is a hue and cry by the
intervening petitioners the very message posted in the Facebook circulated
throughout the world and it affects the entire society and the inaction on the
part of the respondent is also being noticed by every common man and it
hurts that why Court of law is not evenly applied to all citizens equally.
44. Words are more powerful than acts
45. Not all murders are given capital punishment. We look into the
circumstances and all related aspects under which the act was done.
Those words used in the message are not said under emotion. People use
such words during quarrel and later they may regret but putting things in
writing or typing means they know the consequences and do it.
46. Forwarded message is equal to accepting the message and
endorsing the message.
47. What is said is important, but who has said it, is very important in
a society because people respect persons for the social status.
48. When a celebrity like person forward messages like this, the
common public will start believe it that this type of things are going on.
This sends a wrong message to the society at a time when we are talking
about women empowerment.
49. The language and the words used are not indirect but a direct
abusive obscene foul language which is not expected from a person of this
calibre and age who claims to be a literate with lot of credential with lot of
followers.
50. Instead of being a role model to his followers he sets a wrong
precedent. Daily we see young emotional boys getting arrested for doing
this type of activities in social medias. Law is same to everyone and
people should not loose faith in our judiciary. Mistakes and crimes are not
same. Only children can make mistakes which can be pardoned, if the
same is done by elderly people it becomes an offence.
51. There cannot be any harsher words than this which portraits all
working women coming up in life are sacrificing their chasity. The future of
such working women is at stake.
52. Instead of wiping out the wrong impression about working women
among the public these words create fear and anxiety among people who
want to pursue a career.
53. After seeing these forwarded words from a person who is popular
and has lot of connections with media people for long, the public will look at
every working women with a suspicious eye.
54. If what is being practiced, no women will come forward to enter
into public life. He has only regretted for forwarding but he has not denied
what is said in the message. As claimed by him what awareness this
message creates in public is?
55. No one has any right to abuse women and if done it is a violation
of rights. When calling a person with community name itself is a crime,
using such unparliamentarily words is more heinous.
56. If sharing bed is the only way to come up in life then does it
include all women who are holding high posts now?
57. When we are in public life, every act of us is being watched by
public.
58. Control of emotions, showing emotions in a controlled form is a
leadership quality. Words from people who are in public life should bring
peace and harmony and should not incite hatred and disharmony.
59. Talking is different from typing. Typing becomes a document,
one cannot go back saying that i have not done it.
60. These messages are deleted and not erased. People should not
go with a feeling that we can air anything and get away with a word sorry.
61. Women should be encouraged to come up in life because those
words are not just on a single person but against a gender and a women
means a family.
62. On perusal of the records regarding the case, registered against
the accused for the offences under the Sections 504, 505 (1) (c), 509 of
IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Probhition of Harrassment of Women Act
2002 and in view of the strong objection made by the prosecution, records
pertaining to the influential personality of that person as stated by the
petitioner himself and the intervening petitioners and after hearing the
arguments of both sides, it is but natural to feel that when the offended
public including women were arrested during a protest why the person who
is the root cause for such a protest is not dealt with according to law.
63. This forwarded message has shaken the entire society in which
women hold an equal citizenship with all rights without a gender disparity.
64. Considering the above said facts and discussions, this Court is
not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the
petition is dismissed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions, if
any are closed.
65. In view of the arguments advanced by the intervening petiitoners
that the respondent police is directed to proceed with the case in the same
way as they are investigating with any other common man.
10.05.2018
vsi2
Note to office : Issue order copy on 10.05.2018
S. RAMATHILAGAM, J.
No comments:
Post a Comment