Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"Suo motu contempt case is hereby transferred to the Principal seat at Chennai and be placed before the Full Bench of S.Rajeswaran, J, C.T.Selvam, J, and A.Arumughaswamy, J."

3. The matter was posted on 25.09.2013. The contemnor was present. Representations on his behalf were made by A.K.Ramasamy, Advocate, President of the Madurai District Bar Association and Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, with a few others chipping in. While Mr.A.K.Ramasamy's address was in the nature of a requisition against the contempt proceedings, that of Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, we regret to note was confrontationist. In the course of his address, Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, went to the extent of stating that it was not the Judge who had been beaten, it was only an Advocate. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad submitted that the power to punish for contempt was a relic of the British Raj, to be done away with. Mr.Mohan, Advocate assisting Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, submitted that the contempt proceedings was ab initio void since Rule 8 of the High Court Contempt of Rules Act stood violated. Both Mr.A.K.Ramasamy and N.G.R.Prasad further addressed us on the nobility of the Tamil cause that was sought to be espoused through boycott of proceedings. To similar effect were a few remarks of other counsel forming part of the contemnor entourage. We consciously use the word entourage. We are given to understand that a body of Advocates led by Mr.A.K.Ramasamy had travelled from Madurai towards being present whilst the contempt proceedings were on. There was a collective missing of the wood for the trees. The cause before us was the conduct of an Advocate which was found contumacious. We have no quarrel with the cause sought to be espoused by him. That simply is not the issue. The issue, pure and simple, is that recorded in the memorandum of proceedings dated 10.09.2013. Even in the trying circumstances, we thought it not proper to ignore the entreaties of Mr.A.K.Ramasamy and thus we informed him that the apology should come forth from the contemnor. On being advised by Mr.A.K.Ramasamy and others, the contemnor's initial remarks were "if it is wrong to protest the Tamil cause I have wronged". On his being further prompted by others his remarks were "the decision of the Association is my decision" and still thereafter "I will abide by the decision of the President and as the President wanted him to apologise he was apologising." Despite this we wished to refrain from punishing the contemnor and affording him a further opportunity to inform an apology of the heart, we adjourned the proceedings to 28.10.2013.

6. We first will lay aside the technical objection raised by Mr.Mohan, Advocate. Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act reads as follows:

'14. Procedure where contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court or a High Court.-(1) When it is alleged, or appears to the Supreme Curt or the High Court upon its own view, that a person has been guilty of contempt committed in its presence or hearing, the Court may cause such person to be detained in custody, and, at any time before the rising of the Court, on the same day, or as early as possible thereafter, shall-
'8. Where a Judge of the High Court considers that any matter that might have come to his notice in any way requires initiation of proceedings in contempt against any person, the papers relevant thereto together with the direction of the Judge shall be placed before the Chief Justice for consideration as to whether the matter may be forwarded to the Advocate General.'

7. The submission that in initiating present proceedings Rule 8 of the Contempt of Courts stand violated is to be rejected outright. By necessity, Rule 8 which informs of any matter that might have come to the notice of a Judge and wherein he considered it necessary to initiate proceedings in contempt, necessarily cannot apply when contempt has been informed of having been committed in the presence and/or hearing of the Judge. If Rule 8 were applied also to such a case the effect would be,

5. Though the adverse remarks were made by this Court only against Mr.W.Peter Ramesh Kumar in the order, dated 22.09.2010, with a view to create unreasonable support, two other names of his office colleague have been added in the common affidavit, though they are nothing to do with the adverse remarks passed by this Court. However, by filing the common affidavit containing false and defamatory allegations, the two other Advocates have also committed contempt of court.
(i) In the common affidavit, dated 04.10.2010, paragraph number 4, it reads thus :