Madras High Court
V.Anbazhagan vs The Registrat General on 22 December, 2014
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, M.Sathyanarayanan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.12.2014 CORAM The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE AND The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN W.P.No.33826 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 V.Anbazhagan .. Petitioner -vs- The Registrat General High Court of Madras High Court, Chennai. .. Respondent Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the Notification No.192/2014 in R.O.C.No.3492/ 2014/C3 dated 09.12.2014 and Official Memorandum in R.O.C.No.3492/2014/C3 dated 09.12.2014 on the file of the respondent and quash the same and direct the respondent to reduce the number of holidays to the High Court of Madras and Subordinate Civil Courts in the State of Tamil Nadu during Deepavali Festival. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Doraisamy for Mr.S.Kumaradevan For Respondent : Mr.M.Baskar * * * * * O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice) Mr.M.Baskar, learned counsel, accepts notice for the respondent.
2.The petitioner claiming to be a social worker and a press reporter and also claiming to be working as Chief Editor of 'Dhinamathi', a Tamil Daily, since 2005, has filed the present Public Interest Litigation, aggrieved by the Calendar arranged by this High Court.
3.It is his say that for the past two decades only the festival of Deepavali is celebrated in the State of Tamil Nadu and two days holidays used to be given, as it is not a major festival in the southern part of India. It is stated to have been made famous by the north Indian people, who have settled in the State of Tamil Nadu. It is pleaded that the Tamil festival of Pongal is celebrated nowhere except the State of Tamil Nadu. The allegation is that because the last and current Chief Justice happened to be from north India, it is an endeavour to thrust the northern culture on the people of Tamil Nadu.
4.The petitioner, thereafter, proceeds to go into the aspect as to why Deepavali is celebrated. He questions why Ravanaa's effigies should be burnt on that date, as he claims, this amounts to a vendatta against a section of the Dravidian people.
5.Surprisingly, simaltaneously he claims that India is a multi- cultural and heterogeneous nation, which should protect everybody the right to worship birth, but not death. The grant of holiday of four days on 9th and 11th to 13th of November, 2015 is, thus, pleaded to be unnecessary, apart from the fact that it makes advocates jobless and affecting the functioning of the Courts. It is also alleged that only the senior most judges of the Court are from northern part of India.
6.Thereafter, a political discourse starts in the petition of the statement made by the External Affairs Minister qua Bhagavad Gita and it further states that the holiday for Deepavali amounts to patronising Hindu religion and discrimination against other religions. The petitioner prays that not more than one day for Deepavali festival, i.e. on 10.11.2015, should be declared holiday. The petitioner also pleads that the respondent has no authority to declare public holiday under Section 25 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
7.We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length.
8.India is a vast country with various cultures, languages with dialects, food habits something the Nation is proud of. All these persons of various cultures have combined together to form the Nation of India. It is something to be celebrated rather than to segregate the country into two parts by raising the divisive issues, as the present petition seeks to do. There is no North-South divide but for the endeavours of persons like the petitioner, who seek to raise these divisive issues only to gain publicity and create unrest among people. It is necessary for the Court to come down with heavy hand on such endeavours. Persons from one part of the country have settled in other parts of the country and they have a constitutional protection to do so.
9.The process of settling of calendar of a High Court requires the Registry to prepare a draft calendar, which, then, in turn, is discussed with all the representatives of the Advocates Associations and the Moffussil Bar. In fact, towards the endeavour for increasing the working days in Court, a discussion was held with the Advocates associations and the Moffussil Bar, but they were unanimously of the view that the total number of working days should not be increased. It was stated that the High Court is required to work for 210 days, but in order to increase the working days, the Madras High Court works for half-an-hour each day extra and when calculated over the period of time, it amounts to working of 230 days. This was with the objective of increasing the working days of the Court to facilitate justice to the public at large. The advocates had emphasized that they also need time for preparation and other matters, which are done during the vacation period.
10.The Calender is, thereafter, placed before the Full court and is, then, approved. This process has also gone into. It is immaterial as to who presides over this Court as Chief Justice. That is an incidence of the policy of having outsiders as Chief Justices of the Court possibly with the endeavour to having a greater national amalgamation.
11.The aforesaid process having been completed, the petitioner, a journalist, cannot settle the calendar of this Court by raising the divisive issue as to what should be the set of holidays. We may also note that Christmas holidays commence from 25th of this month and continue till 4th January, 2015. The Pongal holidays are falling immediately after a week of the opening of the Court and that is why, it was deemed expedient not to close down for a complete week, just after the Court had opened on completion of a recess period of almost ten days. Despite this fact, five days holidays including the weekend have been given for Pongal holidays. In fact, this aspect was once again specifically discussed with the representatives of the Bar.
12.As to whether the advocates are rendered jobless or not is the concern of the advocates and their representatives, who are consulted during the framing of the calendar and not every one in sundry who wants to gain public importance through such means. The issue of access to justice is only a veil to cover the real agenda raise a divisive issue of cultural divide between North and South of India as is apparent from the pleadings.
13.We strongly condemn the motive of filing this petition, which seeks to raise divisive issues of mythological nature to create a jurisdiction of P.I.L. As a journalist, the responsibility is even more on the petitioner towards uniting rather than dividing the Country. The Court must, thus, deter filing of such petitions and we consider it appropriate to dismiss this petition with exemplary cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court Campus, within fifteen (15) days from today. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 are closed.
(S.K.K., CJ.) (M.S.N., J.) 22.12.2014 Index : Yes Internet : Yes sra The Hon'ble Chief Justice and M.Sathyanarayanan, J.
(sra) To The Registrat General High Court of Madras High Court, Chennai.
W.P.No.33826 of 201422.12.2014