Madurai Bar Association that condemned the judicial order of Justice N. Kirubakaran for mandating wearing helmets by two-wheeler riders. The Court took suo motu cognizance against the contemnors and the genesis of the suo-motu contempt petition commenced from a letter of the Principal District Judge, Madurai. A Division Bench comprising Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan said, “We would like to place on record our dis-satisfaction and

Home  / Court Updates  / High Courts Attempted To Take Law On Their Own Hands: Madras HC Deprecates Madurai Bar Association’s Resolution Condemning Judicial Order Mandating Wearing Of Helmet BySwasti Chaturvedi|28 May 2024 5:00 PM The Madras High Court deprecated the resolution passed by the Madurai Bar Association that condemned the judicial order of Justice N. Kirubakaran for mandating wearing helmets by two-wheeler riders. The Court took suo motu cognizance against the contemnors and the genesis of the suo-motu contempt petition commenced from a letter of the Principal District Judge, Madurai. A Division Bench comprising Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan said, “We would like to place on record our dis-satisfaction and disappointment to the manner in which the lawyers at Madurai had resorted to a coercive action over a judicial order passed by a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court.. We deem it unnecessary to point out to the learned members of the Bar Association about the effective alternate remedy available to them against an order of the Court, if it is found to be unacceptable or unimplementable.” Also Read – Allahabad HC Raises Concerns Over Poor Quality Of Cyber Crime Investigation Advocate V. Vijayashankar represented the petitioner while Advocate N.G.R. Prasad represented the contemnors. Brief Facts – The suo-motu contempt petition commenced from a letter of the Principal District Judge, Madurai that was addressed to the Registrar General of the High Court, highlighting the resolutions passed by the Madurai Bar Association in 2015, in a letter head signed by P. Dharmaraj and A.K. Ramasamy, claiming themselves to be the President and Secretary of the Madurai Bar Association respectively. The resolution touched upon a judicial order passed by Justice N. Kirubakaran (as he then was), mandating wearing of helmets by the two-wheeler riders in Tamil Nadu State. The Chief Justice made reference to a Division Bench, presided over by Justice S. Tamilvanan and Justice C.T. Selvam (as they then were), for initiation of suo motu contempt proceedings. On being satisfied with the records before it, the Division Bench issued statutory notice to the contemnors and on their appearance, copies of the contempt petition were served on them. Also Read – Aggrieved Party Against Whom If Forged Or Fabricated Document Is Made Use Of In A Court Of Law Can File Criminal Complaint: Karnataka HC When it was brought to the notice of the Division Bench that a procession was organized by some Advocates from the Madurai District Court premises to the Madurai Bench of the High Court premises, the Bench called upon the Director General of Police, Chennai, to inquire and file a report. Contrary to such directions, the Inspector General of Police, Welfare, Chennai, filed a Sub Application before the Bench for modification of paragraph 8 of the order and certain remarks made in the Sub Application were found as an act of disobedience of the order of the Division Bench. On accepting unconditional apology, the Bench closed the sub-application without any adverse remarks against the police officer. The suo-motu contempt petition was therefore listed before the Bench. Also Read – There Can’t Be Conviction Solely Based On Medical Evidence: Kerala HC Acquits Man Being Accused Of Killing His Minor Daughter The High Court in view of the above facts observed, “With regard to the involvement of the contemnors are concerned, though it cannot be ruled out that both of them were party to the concerted action, it would not be appropriate to isolate these two lawyers alone and proceed with further action. We would hasten to add here that we are not condoning their involvement in the contemptuous acts.” In their affidavits filed in the Suo-Motu Contempt Petition, though both the contemnors denied the charges levelled against them and rendered certain explanations, the Court took note of the unconditional apologies tendered by them. Both the contemnors, who were more than 70 years of age, also expressed the respect they have for the judiciary. Also Read – Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To SP Leader Mohd Azam Khan, His Wife And Son In Fake Birth Certificate Case “In consideration of the fact that several other lawyers had admittedly participated in the agitation and by accepting the unconditional apologies rendered by both the contemnors, namely P.Dharmaraj and A.K.Ramasamy, no further action is required against them”, concluded the Court. Accordingly, the High Court closed the suo-motu contempt petition. Cause Title- High Court of Madras v. P. Dharmaraj & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:MHC:2061) Appearance: Petitioner: Advocate V. Vijayashankar Contemnors: Advocates N.G.R. Prasad, D. Nagasaila, Niranjan Rajagopal, and S. Rajagopalan. Click here to read/download the Judgment Madras High CourtJustice M.S. RameshJustice Sunder MohanContempt PetitionSuo Motu Swasti Chaturvedi Next Story Allahabad HC Raises Concerns Over Poor Quality Of Cyber Crime Investigation BySukriti Mishra|28 May 2024 9:30 PM The Allahabad High Court voiced serious apprehensions regarding the deteriorating quality of investigations into cyber crimes, citing it as a significant flaw in the judicial process. The Court was hearing a bail application in a rape case where the accused had allegedly recorded a video of the crime. The Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot said, “The said videos have been recovered from the applicant. Storing and circulating indecent videos of ladies is becoming a serious menace in the society.” Noting that the investigation into indecent videos is still on foot, the Court opined, “The victim is vulnerable.Enlarging the applicant on bail at this stage will not be conducive to a fair trial or investigation. The offence is grave. There is likelihood that the applicant committed the offence. At this stage, no case for bail is made out.” The court noted that despite the recovery of incriminating evidence, such as the video recording, the investigation conducted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahar, exhibited various deficiencies, albeit later rectified. This incident prompted the Court to reiterate its longstanding concerns regarding the investigation of cyber crimes, emphasizing systemic inadequacies and the lack of proper supervision by police authorities. “Poor quality of investigation in I.T. related offences/cyber offences is becoming a major fault line in the functioning of the investigations. The Court has voiced its concern time and again. The Court had also issued directions to ensure that both the systemic inadequacies are addressed by the police authorities, namely, the failure to proper investigate the cyber crimes and poor supervision over the investigations,” the Bench said. While emphasizing that Trial Court shall make all endeavours to conclude the trial preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order the Bench said, “Counsels or parties who delay or impede the proceedings should not only be discouraged from doing so but in appropriate cases exemplary costs should also be imposed on such parties/ counsel….The learned trial court shall promptly take out all strict coercive measures against all the witnesses in accordance with law who fail to appear in the trial proceeding. Counsels or parties who delay or impede the proceedings should not only be discouraged from doing so but in appropriate cases exemplary costs should also be imposed on such parties/ counsel.” The Bail plea in question was filed by Mange @ Ravindra, accused under Sections 376D and 506 of the IPC, and Sections 5G/6 of the POCSO Act, who was identified as the principal offender in the rape case. Despite ongoing investigations into the circulation of indecent videos and the vulnerability of the victim, the Court deemed it inappropriate to grant bail, citing the seriousness of the offence and the likelihood of the applicant’s involvement. The Court, while dismissing the Bail plea, directed the Trial Court to expedite proceedings, urging a swift conclusion preferably within one year. Additionally, the Court mandated the Trial Court to enforce strict coercive measures against witnesses failing to appear, with the police authorities tasked to ensure prompt execution of warrants issued by the Trial Court. “Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned Government Advocate for placing the same to the Director General of Police, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh,” the Court further ordered. Cause Title: Mange @ Ravindra v. State Of Up And 3 Others [Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:83907] Appearance:- Applicant: Advocates Rajeev Kumar Singh Parmar, Sunil Kumar Dwivedi Opposite Party: Advocate Ashish Srivastava (G.A.) Click here to read/download the Order Justice Ajay BhanotAllahabad High CourtCyber CrimeRape CaseProtection Of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act Sukriti Mishra SIMILAR POSTS High Courts Allahabad HC Raises Concerns Over Poor Quality Of Cyber Crime Investigation High Courts Aggrieved Party Against Whom If Forged Or Fabricated Document Is Made Use Of In A Court Of Law Can… High Courts There Can’t Be Conviction Solely Based On Medical Evidence: Kerala HC Acquits Man Being Accused Of… High Courts Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To SP Leader Mohd Azam Khan, His Wife And Son In Fake Birth… About Verdictum About Us Our Team Privacy Policy Terms of Use Contact Us Write for Us Social Media Find Lawyer Newsletter © Copyright 2024Powered by Hocalwire We’d like to notify you about the latest updates. You can unsubscribe from notifications anytime. Later Allow Powered by iZooto