Madras High Court
High Court Of Madras vs B. Sathish Kumar on 4 June, 2021
Author: P.N. Prakash
Bench: P.N.Prakash, R.Pongiappan
Suo Motu (Crl.) Cont. Petn. No.929 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 28.04.2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 04.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
Suo Motu (Crl.) Contempt Petition No.929 of 2020
High Court of Madras
Chennai 600 104 Petitioner
vs.
1 B. Sathish Kumar, Male, aged 37 years
S/o M. Baskar
No.4/35, Poompuhar Street
Nethaji Nagar
St. Thomas Mount
Chennai 600 016
2 U. Vasudevan, Male, aged 53 years
S/o late Uppili
No.25 Sri Sarva Mangala Nagar III Main Road
Chitlapakkam
Chennai 600 064 Respondents 1 & 2/
Alleged contemnors
3 The Chairman
Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry
High Court Campus
Parrys
Chennai 600 104 3rd respondent
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Suo Motu (Crl.) Cont. Petn. No.929 of 2020
(RR 2 & 3 impleaded as per the order
dated 10.12.2020 passed in this
contempt petition)
Suo Motu (Crl.) Contempt Petition proceedings initiated as per order
dated 12.10.2020 passed by this Court in W.P. No.14434 of 2020 in R.O.C.
No.3274/2020/OS.
For petitioner : Mr. V. Vijay Shankar
For R1 : Mrs. Shaikh Mehrunisa
For R2 : Mr. Rupert J. Barnabas
for Mr. K. Perumal
For R3 : Mr. C.K. Chandrasekar
----
ORDER
(P.N. PRAKASH, J.) To cut a long story short, the order dated 26.02.2021 passed by this Court in this contempt proceedings is extracted below:
“One Ms.R.Poornima (District Judge cadre), is functioning as Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court for the last two and a half years. She has been acting under the direct supervision of the Vigilance Committee of the High Court and under the nose of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. It is common knowledge that in the last two and a half years, the Vigilance Committee has been taking serious action against delinquent judicial officers and staff members, which has earned for Ms.R.Poornima, the wrath of vested interests, who are yearning for her scalp.
2. One B.Sathish Kumar, an Advocate, filed a Writ of Quo Warranto in W.P.No.14434 of 2020 through Mr.P.Vijendran, Advocate, questioning the appointment of Ms.R.Poornima, on the ground that 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Suo Motu (Crl.) Cont. Petn. No.929 of 2020 she lacks the necessary educational qualification, in which, the First Bench of this Court, by order dated 12.10.2020, dismissed the said Writ Petition with exemplary costs and also issued the following directions :
“39. We, therefore, in the above background also direct the matter to be placed on the administrative side of the High Court for taking such appropriate measures as may be necessary in order to keep the administration free from any such impediments that are likely to cause damage to the system on account of unnecessary publicity or veiled efforts made by either insiders or outsiders to unsettle the administrative machinery of the High Court.
40. The matter shall be placed on the administrative side for taking appropriate action or enquiry in respect of this incident.” The matter was considered by the High Court on the administrative side and an enquiry was conducted, based on which, a report was submitted to the Hon'ble Chief Justice, who in turn, has directed the report to be placed before this Bench, which is seized of the contempt proceedings against B.Sathish Kumar.
3. During the course of hearing of this Contempt Petition, B.Sathish Kumar came up with a version that he had acted at the behest of one U.Vasudevan, Advocate and therefore, the said U.Vasudevan was impleaded as 2nd respondent.
4. U.Vasudevan and B.Sathish Kumar, Advocates have filed their affidavits, wherein, they are trading charges against each other, one blaming the other for the misadventure in filing the Writ of Quo Warranto. While that being so, we carefully scrutinised the materials gathered by the vigilance detachment unit of the High Court and we are shocked to find that the matter is not as simple as what it appears to be.
5. We prima facie find the names of judicial officers, staff members, advocates et al having worked in tandem to destroy this institution from inside. Therefore, we cannot allow this matter to rest 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Suo Motu (Crl.) Cont. Petn. No.929 of 2020 at ease. In order to ensure impartiality and transparency, we are ordering the transfer of this file from the office of the Registrar (Vigilance), since Ms.R.Poornima continues to hold the said post, to Mr.S.Ganapathisamy, Officer on Special Duty, Recruitment Cell, High Court, Madras, whom we now appoint as the Nodal Officer for this case.
6. We entrust the enquiry to Ms.G.Nagajothi, I.P.S., Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch-I, to enquire into the entire circumstances under which the litigation in W.P.No.14434 of 2020 arose and the players and actors, who were behind this, be them judicial officers, staff members, advocates or anyone else.
7. The enquiry report of the Vigilance unit which is in our custody, is directed to be handed over to Mr.S.Ganapathisamy, for his perusal and forwarding the same to Ms.G.Nagajothi, I.P.S., for her enquiry.
8. Every organ of the State shall render its best assistance to Ms.G.Nagajothi, I.P.S., who shall have the powers of an Investigating Officer under Chapter-XII of Cr.P.C., sans arrest.
9. Ms.G.Nagajothi, I.P.S. shall directly report to Mr.S.Ganapathisamy and shall submit a report to this Court within two weeks.
10. The State Government shall not relieve Ms.G.Nagajothi, I.P.S. from her present duties, until the completion of the enquiry that has been entrusted to her by this Court.
11. Mr.S.Ganapathisamy and Ms.G.Nagajothi, I.P.S. are directed to complete the enquiry within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and submit the same in a sealed cover to this Court.
Post this Contempt Petition on 23.03.2021. Presence of the alleged contemnors before this Court is recorded and they shall also be present before this Court on 23.03.2021.” 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Suo Motu (Crl.) Cont. Petn. No.929 of 2020 2 It was brought to the notice of this Court that Vasudevan, the second respondent herein, had filed Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.2816- 2817 of 2021 before the Supreme Court challenging the order dated 10.12.2020 in W.P.No.14434 of 2020 and the order passed by this Court on 26.02.2021. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 09.04.2021 leaving all questions open to be pursued before this Court observing that the proceedings before this Court were at the nascent stage.
3 Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, Mr.S.Ganapathisamy, Officer on Special Duty, Recruitment Cell, High Court, Madras, was nominated as the Nodal Officer for this case and Ms.G.Nagajothi, I.P.S., Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch-I, was nominated as the Enquiry Officer. They have submitted their joint enquiry report dated 27.04.2021 in a sealed cover, which we have carefully studied.
4 Upon a perusal of the enquiry report, we were shocked to find the active involvement of a serving judicial officer and the passive involvement of certain others in engineering the vexatious quo warranto litigation referred to above.
5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Suo Motu (Crl.) Cont. Petn. No.929 of 2020 5 However, in the light of the action we propose to initiate against the person(s) named in the enquiry report, we deem it unnecessary to make the contents of the enquiry report public, at this juncture. We make it clear that we are not placing reliance on the enquiry report for deciding the instant contempt petition against Sathish Kumar and his senior Vasudevan and therefore, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary for us to supply them with a copy of the enquiry report.
6 We direct the Registrar General to place the enquiry report dated 27.04.2021 submitted by Mr.S.Ganapathisamy and Ms.G.Nagajothi, I.P.S., before the Hon’ble Chief Justice, for appropriate action against the officer(s) named therein.
7 We place on record our commendation for Mr.S.Ganapathisamy and Ms.G.Nagajothi, I.P.S., for their painstaking efforts in meticulously unearthing materials which disclosed the backdoor involvement of some persons even within the judiciary, which otherwise would not have come to light.
6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Suo Motu (Crl.) Cont. Petn. No.929 of 2020 8 We may incidentally mention that this Court had to clothe Ms.G.Nagajothi, I.P.S. with the powers under Chapter XII Cr.P.C., save the power to arrest, in order to protect the judiciary from crumbling like a pack of cards, inasmuch as, we, prima facie, found that Sathish Kumar and Vasudevan were not alone in their destructive adventure, but had patrons within the judicial system. If the judicial system falls, one pillar of the democracy falls with it and therefore, extraordinary situations call for extraordinary remedies. Having found something seriously amiss, the High Court cannot afford to throw up its hands and plead inability to bring the culprits to justice. If not for the powers given to Ms.G.Nagajothi, I.P.S., it would have been nigh impossible for her to effect seizures of materials from various places which disclose the connivance of some persons within the walls of judiciary. We are fortified in clothing Ms.G.Nagajothi, I.P.S. with the powers under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. by the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu and others vs. Elephant G. Rajendran and others [(2019) 14 SCC 29].
9 Coming to the submission of Mr. Rupert J. Barnabas qua return of the items seized by the Enquiry Officer pursuant to the order dated 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Suo Motu (Crl.) Cont. Petn. No.929 of 2020 26.02.2021 passed by this Court in this contempt petition, we find that the copies of the same may be sufficient for initiation of departmental action against the persons mentioned in the report and therefore, Mr.S.Ganapathisamy, Officer on Special Duty, Recruitment Cell, High Court, Madras, the Nodal Officer in this case, may take copies of the relevant records, including the hard discs and return the same to the persons from whom they were seized.
10 Reverting to the present contempt proceedings, having carefully examined the materials on record, we are of the considered opinion that there are sufficient materials to frame the following charges against Sathish Kumar and Vasudevan:
(a) That you, (1) B. Sathish Kumar, Advocate and (2) U. Vasudevan, Advocate, have acted in tandem to file W.P. No.14434 of 2020 in this Court on the strength of a false affidavit, sworn to by the first of you, alleging that Ms.R.Poornima, District Judge, who was the Registrar (Vigilance), Madras High Court, was not qualified to hold the said post on the ground that she has not passed the Plus Two – Higher Secondary examination, being fully aware that the facts on record were otherwise, in that, she studied in Bethleham Girls Higher Secondary School, Ooty and had passed the Plus Two examination in 1984, as recorded by the 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Suo Motu (Crl.) Cont. Petn. No.929 of 2020 Division Bench in paragraph 15 of the order dated 12.10.2020 passed in W.P. No.14434 of 2020, and have thereby impeded/obstructed and interfered with the administration of justice in the High Court, punishable under Section 2(c)(iii) read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
(b) That you, (1) B. Sathish Kumar, Advocate and (2) U. Vasudevan, Advocate, by filing the aforesaid false affidavit and giving undue publicity to it, in the news media, as could be seen from the news article in the Times of India dated 09.10.2020 titled “HC Registrar not qualified to hold post, says quo warranto plea”, scandalized the High Court, and thereby brought the administration of justice into disrepute in the eye of the public and thereby punishable under Section 2(c)(i) read with Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
(c) In the course of the same transaction referred to in charge (b) above, you (1) B. Sathish Kumar, Advocate and (2) U. Vasudevan, Advocate, have deliberately committed acts that were aimed at dislodging an important functionary of the High Court, viz., Ms.R.Poornima, then Registrar (Vigilance) and have thereby interfered with the administration of justice in the High Court, punishable under Section 2(c)(iii) read with Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
11 B. Sathish Kumar and his counsel Mrs.Shaikh Mehrunisa were present in video conferencing. Similarly, Vasudevan was also present along 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Suo Motu (Crl.) Cont. Petn. No.929 of 2020 with his counsel Mr.Perumal and Mr.Rupert J.Barnabas in video conferencing. The aforesaid charges were read out to them individually and when they were questioned, each of them pleaded “not guilty”. Their plea is recorded. Though they have filed their affidavits in this case, yet, a further opportunity is given to them to file additional affidavits, if they are so advised on or before 18.06.2021. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to Mrs.Shaikh Mehrunisa by e-mail id [email protected] and to Mr.K.Perumal by e-mail id [email protected]. These e-mail ids have been furnished by the counsel in the dockets of their pleadings.
12 The Registry is also directed to upload this order in the website.
Call on 18.06.2021.
(P.N.P., J.) (R.P.A.J.)
04.06.2021
cad/gya
Issue order copy by 08.06.2021
10/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Suo Motu (Crl.) Cont. Petn. No.929 of 2020
To
1 The Registrar General
Madras High Court, Chennai 600 104
2 Mr.S.Ganapathisamy
Officer on Special Duty (Recruitment Cell)
High Court, Madras
3 Ms.G.Nagajothi, I.P.S.
Deputy Commissioner of Police
Central Crime Branch-I
Greater Chennai Police, Vepery, Chennai-7
4 The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras, Chennai 600 014
5 The Secretary
Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry
High Court Campus
Parrys, Chennai 600 104
11/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Suo Motu (Crl.) Cont. Petn. No.929 of 2020
P.N. PRAKASH, J.
AND
R. PONGIAPPAN, J.
cad/gya
Suo Motu (Crl.) Cont. P.No.929 of 2020
04.06.2021
12/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/