Senior Counsel M. Ajmal Khan representing former President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam’s elder brother A.P.J. Mohamed Muthu Meera Maraikayar accused Vision India Party (VIP) mentor V. Ponraj of not obeying in letter and spirit an order passed by the Madras High Court on Friday restraining him from using “the name, figurine or picture” of Kalam for political activities.
Referring to photographs shot at the party’s election campaign meet at Kumarapalayam in Namakkal district and posted by Mr. Ponraj on his Facebook account on Monday, the senior counsel said the masking of the words ‘Abdul Kalam’ before the party’s name and the former President’s picture on the backdrop of the dais through superficial means was a clear attempt to hoodwink the court.
“If they didn’t have time to change the entire backdrop, they could have simply used white sheets of paper to cover the photograph and name of Kalam. Instead, stencilling the name and the photograph on the backdrop did not serve the purpose for which the court order was passed. Even a child could easily figure out the name and photo from the superficial masking done by them,” he said.
Maintaining that it amounted to contempt of court, he said an appropriate petition would be filed in the court after summer vacation. He pointed out that Mr. Ponraj continued to identify himself as Mentor and Advisor of ‘Abdul Kalam VIP’ on his Facebook profile, despite a court order banning using the first two words until the Election Commission takes a decision on the issue.
Attempts to reach Mr. Ponraj for his reaction did not fructify as his mobile phone remained switched off. In a message to his partymen and others through its website as well as his Facebook account on Saturday, he said that he respected the court order and the party’s legal team would take necessary steps to get the interim order vacated.
‘Case motivated’
He also accused Kalam’s family members of filing the case for “political reasons” and said that the figure of Kalam on the party flag shall be “covered with black ink until it resurfaces again when the light of justice emerges.”
In his plaint before the High Court, Mr. Maraikayar had expressed concern over the name of his brother being used for political purposes, though he consciously kept himself aloof from politics during his lifetime. The petitioner also felt aggrieved by the way the photographs and statues of his brother in public places were being covered by election officials because of the launch of the political party.
Accepting his contention, Justice S. Vimala had said: “If the promoters of the party are serious about realising the goals of Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, they are at liberty to serve the people in all possible ways that are agreeable to the great leader, except through electoral politics through which the possibility of abuse, by anybody including the rival political parties, cannot be ruled out.”
Kalam’s brother says his name superficially masked and threatens to move court again
