Madras High Court
Manikandan Vathan Chettiar vs Madras High Court
Author: P.N.Prakash
Bench: P.N.Prakash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 20.07.2015
DELIVERED ON : 14.08.2015
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
Crl. O.P. S.R.Nos.15125 of 2014, 15279 of 2014, 15822 of 2014 &
17070 of 2014
Crl.O.P.S.R.No.15125 of 2014
Manikandan Vathan Chettiar . Petitioner
Vs.
Madras High Court,
Rep. by its Registrar General Shri. Kalaiyarasan,
High Court, Madras. Respondent
Crl. O.P.S.R.No.15279 of 2014
Aarthy Shankar . Petitioner
Vs.
1. Cyril Thamarai Selvam
Judge,
High Court, Madras.
2. Madras High Court Rep by its
Registrar General, High Court,
Madras.
3. Tamilnadu Police Rep by its
Director General of Police
Beach Road, Mylapore, Chennai.
4. Shanmuga Velayudham
Public Prosecutor
High Court,
Madras.
5. Somayaji,
Advocate General,
High Court,
Madras. Respondents
Crl.O.P.S.R.No.15822 of 2014
Panimalar Petitioner
Vs.
1.Director,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Lodi Road,
New Delhi.
2. Madras High Court Rep by its
Registrar General,
High Court,
Madras.
3. Registrar (Vigilance)
High Court,Madras.
4. Director General of Police,
Beach Road,
Mylapore,Chennai.
5. Shanmuga Velayudham,
Public Prosecutor,
High Court,
Madras.
6. Somayaji,
Advocate General,
High Court,
Madras.
7. Secretary,
Bar Council of Tamilnadu,
High Court,
Chennai.
8. Cyril Thamarai Selvam,
Judge,
High Court,
Madras. .. Respondents
Crl.O.P.S.R.No.17070 of 2014
Panimalar . Petitioner
Vs.
1.Madras High Court Rep by its
Registrar General,
High Court,
Madras.
2. Registrar (Vigilance),
High Court,
Madras.
3. Director General of Police,
Beach Road,
Mylapore,
Chennai.
4. Shanmuga Velayudham,
Public Prosecutor,
High Court,
Madras.
5. Somayaji,
Advocate General,
High Court,
Madras.
6. Secretary,
Bar Council of Tamilnadu,
High Court,
Chennai.
7. Cyril Thamarai Selvam,
Judge,
High Court,
Madras. Respondents
Crl. O.P.S.R.No. 15125 of 2014 :
Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC for action against the Deputy Registrar (criminal section) for the reasons stated therein.
Crl. O.P.S.R.No. 15279 of 2014:
Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC to restrain the 1st Respondent from abusing his powers as a judge of the Madras High Court and continuing the wit-hunt against the petitioners husband Shankar based on the Infructuous and fabricated Crl. Op. 27389/13, and forcing the other respondents to partake in his sinister design to imprison and harm or hurt or even eliminate the husband of the petitioner in order to please Mr.Karunanidhi for the reasons stated therein.
Crl. O.P.S.R.No. 15822 of 2014:
Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to scrutinize the chronological notings on the note files bearing the Petitioners complaint dated 11.3.14, and constitute an SIT under the direct supervision of an Additional Director of the CBI, to probe the inaction on the said complaint by the delegated authorities, in the context of the shocking relevations in this petition and direct the said SIT to file a report into this court for the reasons stated therein.
Crl. O.P.S.R.No. 17070 of 2014:
Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to scrutinize the chronological notings on the note files bearing the petitioners complaint presented to the Registrar General on 7.3.14 seeking safe custody and theft of court records, and constitute a committee under the director supervision of a serving High Court Judge, to probe the inaction on the said complaint by the delegated authorities, in the context of the shocking revelations in this petition, and direct the said commit to file a report into this court for the reasons stated therein.
Appearance of Parties:
Crl.O.P.S.R.No.15125 of 2014 : Mr.Manikandan Vathan Chettiar
Party-in-person
Crl. O.P.S.R.No.15279 of 2014 : Ms.M.Kalyani
Crl. O.P.S.R.No.15822 of 2014 : Ms.P.Panimalar [Party-in-person]
Crl. O.P.S.R.No.17070 of 2014 : Mr.Manikandan Vathan Chettiar
C O M M O N O R D E R
At the outset, it may be necessary to briefly narrate the grievance ventilated in each of the petitions.
[i] Crl.O.P.SR.No.15125 of 2014:
This petition has been filed by Mr.Manikandan Vathan Chettiar for a direction to the Registrar General of this Court to take action against the Deputy Registrar, Criminal Section for not listing Crl.O.P.Nos.1536,1537 and 1541 of 2014 before the Court.
[ii] Crl.O.P.SR.No.15279 of 2014:
The petitioner in this case is one Aarthy Shankar, who has made a sitting Judge of this Court, Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Advocate General and Mr.S.Shanmugavelayudham, learned Public Prosecutor, High Court as party respondents apart from other respondents. In the petition it is averred that her husband Shankar is being subjected to witch hunting by the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Mr.M.Karunanidhi and the sitting Judge, with the assistance of Mr.S.Shanmugavelayudham, learned Public Prosecutor and other police officials. Sweeping allegations have been made against the sitting Judge and also against Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Advocate General of the State.
[iii] Crl.O.P.SR.No.17070 of 2014 and 15822 of 2014:
Both these petitions have been filed by one Panimalar for almost same relief, except that in the former she has requested the appointment of a serving High Court Judge to supervise the enquiry and in the latter she has requested the CBI to investigate her complaint dated 11.03.2014. In these petitions, the petitioner has made a sitting Judge of this Court as party respondent together with others including the learned Advocate General and the State Public Prosecutor. She has made allegations ranging from dowry harassment against one Prabhu to perfidy, allegedly committed by her friend one Maha. All possible characters including Politicians, Industrialists, Police, Cinema Stars, Journalists, Advocates, Judicial Officers et al appear in various scenes like in a typical Tamil soap opera. Strangely, those who can refute the allegations like Dinesh, Maha, Tada Chandrasekar, Prabhu and Jansi Rani have not been made as respondents for reasons best known to the petitioner.
2. Heard.
3. On these four matters which were filed praying for various reliefs as Criminal OPs purporting to invoke the power of this Court vested under section 482 Cr.P.C, the Registry expressed certain queries. They were posted for maintainability before the concerned Judge. However, Mr.Manikandan Vathan Chettiar, Advocate who had filed one matter as party-in-person and in another matter where he had filed a memo also purporting to represent the other two criminal OPs sent identical letters to the Registry dated 9.4.2014. It is necessary to refer to the reply which is as follows:
1. In a family dispute between 2 TV News journalists involving criminal and even constitutional overtones such as phone-tapping etc, whereas, on
4.4.14, her Lordship Justice Mrs.Aruna Jagadeesan had recused her from Crl. OP Nos. 4379/14, 1536/14, 1537/14, 1541/14 and the matters filed by the same petitioner & respondent vis-`-vis the same lis were posted before Justice Mrs.Aruna Jagadeesan on 8.4.14 in Crl.OPSR Nos. 11170/14, 15125/14, 15279/14 & 15822/14.
2. When the matters were heard yesterday, her Lordship adjourned the matters instructing me to circulate a letter to the Honble Chief Justice, when I had pointed-out that judicial service matters are required to be placed before the DB as per the roster, and possibly as a consequence of the law laid down on the judicial side of this or the apex court, the reasons for which are better known to the registry which handles such matters on the administrative side.
3. The views of section 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act filed by the same victims have also been raised by way of writ proceedings, which are also to be placed before a DB.
4. Since it is incorrect to place 2 matters between the same persons before 2 learned single judges, which might create conflicting decisions vis-`-vis the same relief, it is hereby requested to place all matters before a special DB, in view of the sensitiveness of the issues.
4. Even in Crl.O.P.S.R.No.15279 of 2014 where another counsel had filed a Vakalat (M.Kalyani), a similar request was made and also the same letter of Manikandan Vathan Chettiar referred to above was also circulated. However, when the matters were placed before the concerned portfolio judge, the request to post before a special Division Bench was declined and it was endorsed that these matters should be heard by concerned roster judge. Thus, all these matters were grouped together and the arguments of Mr.Manikandan Vathan Chettiar were heard both for himself as party in person as well as counsel representing other cases.
5. In Crl.O.P.S.R.No.15125 of 2014, the sole respondent is the High Court of Madras. In other three Crl.OPs, apart from other respondents a learned Judge of this Court was made as a party respondent, though no specific relief was claimed against him. However, several allegations were made in the petition by the respective petitioners without any substantial basis for the same. Mr.Manikandan Vathan Chettiar who was appearing for all the petitions knew very well that such a practice of impleading Judges, Judicial Officers cannot be done by him. Further, indiscriminate and unsubstantial allegations cannot be made in such petitions. He was warned earlier by atleast three Division Benches in this regard. This Court also had initiated suo motu contempt action against him in Crl.O.P.No.30502 of 2014 in Lakshmi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu. Besides that, a reference was also made to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to initiate disciplinary action against him for professional misconducts.
6. For the sake of repetition, it is necessary to draw the earlier warning given to the said counsel by a Division Bench in Vijalakshmi Shanmugam Vs. Chief Justice, Madras High Court, Chennai and Ors reported in 2012 (7) MLJ 16 (W.P.No. 23570 of 2012 dated 7th September 2012). In that case, the Division Bench while dismissing the writ petition gave stern warning to Advocates who make unwarranted averments. It was observed as follows:
Para 21 : Before parting with this case, we are constrained to observe that it is very unfortunate that the petitioner, who claims to be an Advocate, practising in this Chartered High Court, and who has been considered as an Officer of the Court, has come forward with certain unwarranted and contemptuous comments and remarks in the supplementary affidavit dated 30.7.2012, not only against the third respondent, but also against the first respondent. We make it clear that if such unwarranted averments are made in future, we would be forced to take appropriate action in the manner known to law (emphasis added) In that case, the very same counsel had appeared for the petitioner.
7. When the said counsel filed writ petition in which he made a learned sitting Judge of this Court as a party respondent in W.P.SR.No.106151 of 2011, the Registry returned the matter by raising objections. The matter was listed before a Division Bench for deciding the question regarding maintainability of that W.P. By an order dated 27.2.2012, a Division Bench of this Court upheld the Registrys objection and dismissed the petition filed by Mr.Manikandan Vathan Chettiar. In that order, it was observed as follows:-
We are of the view that the maintainability issue raised by the Registry is sustainable and the WPSR is rejected. It is further ordered that the Registry should scrupulously follow the Rules framed under Articles 225 read with 226 of the Constitution of India and the circulars issued by the Honourable Chief Justice, before numbering any writ petition and only if the papers are in order, the same be numbered and posted for admission before the appropriate Court.
8. Even otherwise it is unthinkable as to how an Advocate of this Court or any other litigant can implead a sitting Judge of this court in proceedings of this nature and make all sorts of allegations about his judicial conduct and also invite findings on the same. If there are any grievances about a sitting Judge of a High Court, as to how the Bar should deal with the same and about the nature of complaint to be made and to whom such complaints will lie was evolved by the Supreme Court in its judgment in C.Ravichandran Iyer Vs. Justice A.M.Bhattacharjee & Ors. reported in 1995 (5) SCC 457. It was observed as under:-
Therefore, proper care should be taken by the Bar Association concerned. First it should gather specific, authentic and acceptable material which would show or tend to show that conduct on the part of a Judge creating a feeling in the mind of a reasonable person doubting the honesty, integrity, impartiality or act which lowers the dignity of the office but necessarily, is not impeachable misbehaviour. In all fairness to the Judge, the responsible office bearers should meet him in camera after securing interview and apprise the Judge of the information they had with them. If there is truth in it, there is every possibility that the Judge would mend himself. Or to avoid embarrassment to the Judge, the office bearers can approach the Chief Justice of that High Court and apprise him of the situation with material they have in their possession and impress upon the Chief Justice to deal with the matter appropriately.
9. In that case itself the Supreme Court has evolved an in-house procedure to deal with the complaints of misconducts made against a sitting Judge of the High Court. The procedure for receiving complaints was set out in that judgment as under:-
This procedure would not only facilitate nibbing in the bud the conduct of a Judge leading to loss of public confidence in the courts and sustain public faith in the efficacy of the rule of law and respect for the judiciary, but would also avoid needless embarrassment of contempt proceedings against the office bearers of the Bar Association and group libel against all concerned. The independence of judiciary and the stream of public justice would remain pure and unsullied. The Bar Association could remain a useful arm of the judiciary and in the case of sagging reputation of the particular Judge, the Bar Association could take up the matter with the Chief Justice of the High Court and await his response for the action taken thereunder for a reasonable period. It would thus be seen that yawning gap between proved misbehaviour and bad conduct in consistent with the high office on the part of a non cooperating Judge/Chief Justice of a High Court could be disciplined by self-regulation through in-house procedure. This in-house procedure would fill in the constitutional gap and would yield salutary effect. Unfortunately, recourse to this procedure was not taken in the case at hand, may be, because of absence of legal sanction to such a procedure.
10. The judicially evolved formula came to be reinforced by the Supreme Court in a subsequent judgment in Additional District and Sessions Judge 'X' v. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2015 (4) SCC 91. It was observed as follows:-
35. It is, therefore, apparent that the seeds of the In-House procedure came to be sown in the judgment rendered by this Court in C. Ravinchandran Iyers case. It is also apparent, that actions have been initiated under the in-house procedure, which has the approval of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of India. And, based on the afore-stated in-house procedure, impeachment proceedings were actually initiated by the Parliament under Article 124 of the Constitution of India. There can therefore be no doubt whatsoever, that in the above situation, the in-house procedure is firmly in place, and its adoption for dealing with matters expressed by this Court in C. Ravichandran Iyers case is now a reality.
11. In the light of the mechanism for taking action against a sitting Judge of the High Court having been put in place, there is no question of any public discussion on the conduct of the Judge of the High Court as can be seen from the following passage found in the very same judgment referred to above:-
It is impermissible to publicly discuss the conduct of a sitting judge, or to deliberate upon the performance of his duties, and even on/of court behaviour, in public domain. Whilst the in- house procedure lays down means to determine the efficacy of the allegations levelled, it is now apparent, that the procedure is not toothless, in the sense, that it can lead to impeachment of the concerned judge under Article 124 of the Constitution of India (emphasis added)
12. Therefore all the petitions listed are clearly not maintainable and are liable to be dismissed. However the matter do not end therein. This Court finds that the conduct of the counsel as well as the parties who have filed the petitions cannot be let off. This Court intends to take suo motu criminal contempt action against the counsel and the parties who are listed below:-
(i)Manikandan Vathan Chettiar, Advocate
(ii)Mrs.Panimalar
(iii)Mrs.Aarthy Shankar
(iv)Kalyani, Advocate
13. These four persons have made unsubstantial allegations against the sitting Judge of this Court. Apart from that, they have also made him as a party to the Crl.O.P. filed by them without seeking any relief against him. Further, when the Registry made a return of their papers, they had not only demanded that it should not be heard by the regular roster Judge, but also made a demand that it should be heard by a special Division Bench. Even after their request was turned down, the counsel appearing both in persons as well as in the capacity of an advocate, they repeated ad-naseum the same arguments without realising their responsibility and they have wilfully committed contempt of this Court.
14. It may not be out of place to note that, Mr.Manikandan Vathan Chettiar in respect of a return made by the Registry in respect of another unnumbered writ petition in W.P.SR.No. 106151 of 2011 made a similar request. In that case, the prayer found in that W.P. was as follows:
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is an Advocate appearing before us, against one of the Honble Judges, viz., Honble Ms.Justice K.Suguna and the Registrar General. The same petitioner Advocate filed another writ petition against the Chief Justice of this Court.
When this case was called out, the petitioner Advocate submits that this Court should not hear the matter. Without making any observation, we think it proper to place the matter before another Division Bench. Let this case be listed before the Division Bench hearing another similar writ petition viz., W.P.No. 19894 of 2011.
15. A Division Bench while passing orders rejecting the maintainability of the said writ petition upheld the office objections and held as follows:-
18. The plea of alternate remedy raised by the Registry is found fault with by the petitioner. The same is stated in the Rules framed under Article 225 read with Article 226 as stated supra. Even assuming that there is any practical difficulty in getting any case numbered or even after numbering if there is any delay in posting the case for admission, it is for the petitioner to address a letter to the Registry and the Registry will take appropriate steps. In this case, petitioner has not approached the Registry with a written representation. Instead of redressing his grievance, if any, on the administrative side, the petitioner has chosen to file this petition and challenge the so called instructions. The said procedure adopted by the petitioner is only for the purpose of finding fault with the Registry, instead of redressing his grievance, if any, at the Registry level.
19. On perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the affidavit filed by the petitioner is also not according to the rules, as the rule contemplates the affidavit must contain the name of the deponent, father's name, age, religion and residential address. In this case even though the petitioner has mentioned his name, father's name, age and religion, the place of residence is not mentioned. Petitioner has also not mentioned his correct name in the affidavit. In the affidavit and petition, petitioner has mentioned his name as "V.Manikandan". In the writ petition, wherein the petitioner is appearing as counsel for the petitioner in the connected matter disposed of today, his name is mentioned as "Manikandan Vathan Chettiar". Thus, there is discrepancy with regard to his name itself.
20. All these facts can be questioned by the Registry before numbering a writ petition and Rule 3 clearly says, soon after the writ is numbered the same be posted for the orders of the Court. Hence the WPSR filed by the petitioner, which is posted for maintainability by the Registry, cannot be found fault with. If the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit are accepted, any petition, whether it is maintainable before the Court or before the Tribunal, even if it is defectively filed, are to be automatically numbered. If the said procedure is followed, the regulatory power conferred to the High Court under Article 225 and 226 of the Constitution of India, will be of no meaning, which the petitioner should have ascertained before filing this kind of petition, finding fault with the Registry and the learned Judge.
21. For the above said reasons, we are of the view that the maintainability issue raised by the Registry is sustainable and the WPSR is rejected. It is further ordered that the Registry should scrupulously follow the Rules framed under Articles 225 read with 226 of the Constitution of India and the circulars issued by the Honourable Chief Justice, before numbering any writ petition and only if the papers are in order, the same be numbered and posted for admission before the appropriate Court.
16. The conduct of the two counsels and the two parties in filing frivolous cases in Courts and when the Registry which is obliged to scrutinize the papers and post it before Courts only when it is in order is ignored and impleading of Judges by name without any justification and legal requirements is seen clear in the above orders passed by the Division Bench.
17. It has to be examined as to whether the two counsels have committed criminal contempt by their actions noted above. The term 'Criminal Contempt' is defined under section 2(c ) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:
Section 2 (c) criminal contempt means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner; "
18. The warnings given by the Division Bench in its decision referred to above does not confine only to persons / advocates who file frivolous petitions but even to counsels who draft / approve such petitions and file it before court. In this context, it is necessary to refer to certain decisions of the Supreme Court. In M.Y.Shareef and another V. The Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur and Others reported in AIR 1955 SC 19 it was held as follows:-
It cannot be denied that a section of the Bar is under an erroneous impression that when a counsel is acting in the interests of his client, or in accordance with his instructions he is discharging his legitimate duty to his client even when he signs an application or a pleading which contains matter scandalizing the Court. They think that when there is conflict between their obligations to the court and their duty to the client, the latter prevails. This misconception has to be rooted out by a clear and emphatic pronouncement, and we think it should be widely made known that counsel who sign applications or pleadings containing matter scandalizing the court without reasonably satisfying themselves about the prima facie existence of adequate grounds therefor, with a view to prevent or delay the course of justice, are themselves guilty of contempt of court, and that it is no duty of a counsel to his client to take any interest in such applications; on the other hand, his duty is to advise his client for refraining from making allegations of this nature in such applications (emphasis added)
19. Again the Supreme Court in In Re: Roshan Lal Ahuja vs Unknown reported in 1993 Supp 4 SCC 446 held as follows:-
12. ..Liberty of free expression is not to be confused with a licence to make unfounded, unwarranted and irresponsible aspersions against the Judges or the courts in relation to judicial matters. No system of justice can tolerate such an unbridled licence. Of course "Justice is not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men", but the members of the public have to abstain from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice and exercise their right of free criticism without malice or in any way attempting to impair the administration of justice and refrain from making any comment which tends to scandalise the court in relation to judicial matters.
20. Once again the Supreme Court in Chetak Construction Ltd. V. Om Prakash reported in (1998) 4 SCC 577, held as under :
"16. Indeed, no lawyer or litigant can be permitted to browbeat the court or malign the presiding officer with a view to get a favourable order. Judges shall not be able to perform their duties freely and fairly if such activities were permitted and in the result administration of justice would become a casualty and the rule of law would receive a setback. The Judges are obliged to decide cases impartially and without any fear or favour. Lawyers and litigants cannot be allowed to terrorize or intimidate Judges with a view to secure orders which they want. This is basic and fundamental and no civilised system of administration of justice can permit it."
21. Further, in Vishram Singh Taghubanshi V. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2011 SC 2275, the Supreme Court in paragraph 16 held as follows :
A Lawyer cannot be a mere mouthpiece of his client and cannot associate himself with his client maligning the reputation of judicial officers merely because his client failed to secure the desired order from the said officer. A deliberate attempt to scandalise the court which would shake the confidence of the litigating public in the system, would cause a very serious damage to the institution of judiciary. An advocate in a profession should be diligent and his conduct should also be diligent and conform to the requirements of the law by which an Advocate plays a vital role in the preservation of society and justice system. Any violation of the principles of professional ethics by an Advocate is unfortunate and unacceptable (emphasis added)
22. In yet another decision O.P.Sharma V. High Court of Punjab & Haryana reported in 2011 (6) SCC 86, the Supreme Court held as follows :
In a profession with such a vivid history it is regretful, to say the least, to witness instances of the nature of the present kind. Lawyers are the officers of the court in the administration of justice. The Bench as well as the bar has to avoid unwarranted situations or trivial issues that hamper the cause of justice and are in no one's interest. A lawyer cannot be a mere mouthpiece of his client and cannot associate himself with his client in maligning the reputation of a judicial officer merely because his client failed to secure the desired order from the said officer. A deliberate attempt to scandalise the court which would shake the confidence of the litigating public in the system and would cause a very serious damage to the name of the judiciary. (emphasis added)
23. The Supreme Court has emphasised the need to take strong actions including initiation of contempt against those who are guilty of attacking Courts and Judges in C. Ravichandran Iyers case (cited supra), it was observed as follows:-
If freedom of expression subserves public interest in reasonable measure, public justice cannot gag it or manacle it; but if the court considered the attack on the Judge or Judges scurrilous, offensive, intimidatory or malicious, beyond condonable limits, the strong arm of the law must strike a blow on him who challenges the supremacy of the rule of the law by fouling its source and stream. The power to punish the contemner is, therefore, granted to the court not because Judges need the protection but because the citizens need an impartial and strong judiciary.
24. Once again the same principles were reiterated by the Supreme Court by its decision in U.P. Sales Tax Service Association Vs Taxation Bar Association, Agra & Anr. reported in 1995 (5) SCC 716 and it is necessary to extract the following passage found in the said judgment:-
making wild allegations of corruption against the presiding officer amounts to scandalising the court/statutory authority. Imputation of motives of corruption to the judicial oficer/authority by any person or group of persons is a serious inroad into the efficacy of judicial process and threat to judicial independence and needs to be dealt with strong arm of law. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is prima facie material against Manikandan Vathan Chettiar & Kalyani, Advocates and the two parties appearing in person Panimalar & Aarthy Shankar for initiating criminal contempt action against them, for interference with the course of justice is available before this Court and hence this Court takes suo motu cognizance of the contempt committed by them.
25. Except in Crl.O.P.SR.No.15125 of 2014, the learned Advocate General of the State and the learned Public Prosecutor of the State have been made as respondents in their personal capacity. Uncharitable allegations have been made against them without any basis or supporting material. The Bar Council of India (BCI) has prescribed Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette for the advocates. The preamble to the Rule itself reads as follows:
An advocate shall, at all times, comfort himself in a manner befitting his status as an officer of the court, a privileged member of the community; and a gentleman, bearing in mind that may be lawful and a moral for a person who is not a member of the Bar, or for a member of the Bar in his non-professional capacity may still be improper for an advocate. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing obligation, an advocate shall fearlessly uphold the interests of his client, and in his conduct conform to the rules hereinafter mentioned both in letter and in spirit. The rules hereinafter mentioned contain canons of conduct and etiquette adopted as general guides; yet the specific mention thereof shall not be construed as a denial of the existence of other equally imperative though not specifically mentioned.
26. Apart from this Preamble, the rules also oblige the advocates with various duties. The first part provides for an advocates duty to the Court. The sub-rule (4) reads as follows:
An advocate shall use his best efforts to restrain and prevent his client from resorting to sharp or unfair practices or from doing anything in relation to the court, opposing counsel of parties which the Advocate himself ought not to do. An advocate shall refuse to represent the client who persists in such improper conduct. He shall not consider himself a mere mouth-piece of the client, and shall exercise his own judgment in the use of restrained language in correspondence, avoiding scurrilous attacks in pleadings, and using intemperate language during arguments in court.
27. The learned Advocate General is a Constitutional functionary and is the leader of the Bar. He is also an Ex-officio member of the State Bar Council. Similarly, the learned Public Prosecutor is an important functionary under the Code of Criminal Procedure and occupies a very esteemed position in the judicial hierarchy. The present incumbents in these two posts are Senior Advocates of long standing.
28. Mr.Manikandan Vathan Chettiar and Ms.Kalyani, Advocates have thrown to wind fundamental canons of decent behaviour towards colleagues by impleading them as party respondents and character assassinating them knowing full well that they would not stoop low and retaliate. Therefore, both of them are liable to be proceeded against for professional misconduct before the Tamil Nadu Bar Council.
29. Hence, this Court directs the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Bar Council to take disciplinary action against Mr.Manikandan Vathan Chettiar and Ms.Kalyani, Advocates for violation of the aforesaid Rule by making Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Advocate General and Mr.S.Shanmugavelayudham, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as respondents in Crl.O.P.SR.Nos.15279, 15822 and 17070 of 2014 and making personal attacks against them.
30. In view of the above, this Court is constrained to pass the following orders:
(i)The objections raised by the Registry are sustained and all the Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed at the SR stage itself for the reasons set out above.
(ii)This Court takes suo motu cognizance under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 of the criminal contempt committed by M/s. Manikandan Vathan Chettiar, Kalyani, Panimalar and Aarthy Shankar in their having made a learned Judge of this Court as a party to these Criminal Original Petitions and for having made reckless and unsubstantiated allegations against him thereby scandalised and lowered the authority of this Court.
(iii)The Registry is directed to place the matter before the Honble Chief Justice so as to enable him to post the criminal contempt before an appropriate Division Bench in terms of Section 18 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
(iv)Registry is directed to send a copy of this order along with copies of the petition and affidavit in Crl.OP.SR.Nos.15125, 15279, 15822 and 17070 of 2014 to the Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu for taking disciplinary action against Mr.Manikandan Vathan Chettiar and Ms.Kalyani.
(v)The Court refrains from making any order as to costs in view of the contempt action initiated against all the four.
14.08.2015 Index : Yes / No To
1. The Registrar General Madras High Court, Chennai 600 104.
2. The Director General of Police Kamaraj Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.
3. The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court, Chennai 600 104
4. The Advocate General, Madras High Court, Chennai 600 104
5. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Plot No. 5-B, 6th Floor, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003 |
6. The Registrar (Vigilance) Madras High Court, Chennai 600 104.
7. The Secretary, Bar Council of Tamilnadu, High Court Campus N.S.C.Bose Road, Chennai 600 104 P.N.PRAKASH, J.
gms Pre Delivery order in Crl. O.P. S.R.Nos. 15125 of 2014, 15279 of 2014, 15822 of 2014 & 17070 of 2014 14.08.2015