Contempt pet copy of savuku sanker. Against RS Barathi IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Contempt Jurisdiction) Contempt Petition No. / 2023 1.. A. Shankar (47 ). சவுக்கு சங்கர் வழக்கு
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Contempt Jurisdiction)
Contempt Petition No. / 2023
1.. A. Shankar (47 )
S/o Achimuthu
No.12/6, TNHB Flats
Maduravoyal
Chennai. 600095
- G.Karthi (21)
S/o. Govindarajan (Late)
Chettinadu School of Law,
Rajiv Gandhi Salai,
Kelambakkam-603 103
Chengalpattu District. ….Petitioners
-Vs-
R.S.Bharathi
S/o D.J.Raman
No.18, 29th Street,
Thillai Ganga Nagar
Nanganallur, Chennai-61 ……..Respondent
AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER
I, A. Shankar, S/o Achimuthu aged about 47 years, having residence at No.12/6, TNHB Flats, Maduravoyal, Chennai 600095, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state on oath as follows:
1.. I am the deponent herein and I am aware of the facts and circumstances of the case. As such, I am competent to file this affidavit for my self and also on behalf of the 2nd petitioner. The 2nd petitioner is a student. He is studying as Fourth year in Law course with great ambition. But the act of the respondent tinkering my mind about legal system. But, I am wandering the person and learn about the legal field. Therefore, as the 2nd petitioner also interested to sue this against the respondent.
Page No. 1 & Corrns:
-2-
- I am an independent investigative journalist and public activist. I am filing this petition to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt against the respondent herein for having committed contempt, ex-facie curiae, by personally attacking and imputing motives to various orders passed by an Hon’ble Judge of this Court. The respondent, who claims to be a politician, has addressed the media imputing motives to the Hon’ble Judge and has gone so far as to accuse him as partial, biased, and acting with malafide intention and casting aspersions as against the functioning of this Hon’ble Court, thereby undermining the authority, majesty and respect of this Hon’ble Court in the eyes of general public. Ex-facie, the condemnable and reprehensible acts of the respondent constitute a clear affront to the dignity of the Court as an institution. I am swearing this affidavit also
- At the outset, I am duty bound to place on record that I was imposed with a sentence of six months by the Madurai Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Suo Motu Cont.Pet.(MD).No.1124 of 2022 dated 15.09.2023. I humbly submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 1845 of 2022 dated 11.11.2022 was pleased to suspend the sentence awarded. My respect for the judges and the majesty of this Hon’ble court is always high and I feel personal concerns of a political party or an individual should always be relegated to the background when pitted against the public cause and dignity of office.
- The genesis of this case can be traced back to the discovery of certain shocking orders of the subordinate courts which indicated that the course of criminal justice had been perverted to favour the cause of certain individuals. A learned judge of this Hon’ble Court, N. Anand Venkatesh, J, who holds the portfolio for cases under MP/MLA’s Act took suo motu cognizance invoking
Page No. 2 & Corrns:
-3-
the powers under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Cr.P.C. Even a casual reading of the order would show that no person who possesses even a flirting acquaintance with law, let alone criminal law, would accept that the procedure adopted by the Special Court were in consonance with law. In fact, subversion of the criminal justice system is written all over the face of the six orders which the Hon’ble Judge had taken suo motu cognizance.
- It is submitted that given the facts which are set out in the Suo Motu order none could have any serious objection to the corrective mode of action initiated by this Hon’ble court. Every law-abiding citizen interested in the upholding of the Rule of law would appreciate the bold decision of the Court in having initiated action against the sitting ministers as well as commenting upon the manner in which the Court has acted to acquit them and that too, in long pending cases.
- I submit that a mere casual reading of the judgment in Mr. Ponmudi case would highlight the pathetic manner in which the case has chartered. It is no better in the case of Mr. K.K.S.S.R. Ramachandran and Mr. Thangam Thenarasu. The orders speak for themselves. Any person aggrieved against the orders are at liberty to challenge or appear before the Court to defend it. But nobody has a right to comment upon the conduct of the judge personally, howsoever high he may be or in whatever manner he may be connected with the men in power. This is more so when the person concerned is a politician who is capable of influencing the masses.
7.. I humbly submit that on 24.7.2023, this Hon’ble Court was pleased to exercise its revision powers by Suo Motu and took up a Suo Motu Criminal revision in Suo Motu Crl.R.C No.1419 of 2023 against Mr. Ponmudi on the Orders of the Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore (Designated Special Court
Page No. 3 & Corrns:
-4-
for MPs and MLAs) made in Spl.SC No.3 of 2022 dated 28.6.2023. I humbly submit that this Hon’ble Court on 23.8.2023, was pleased to take a revision by Suo Motu in Suo Motu Crl.R.C No.1481 of 2023 against Mr.Thennarasu @ Thangam Thennarasu, S/o.Thangapandiyan upon the Order dated 12.12.2022 of the Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhanagar (Designated Special Court for MPs and MLAs) made in Spl. Case No.20 of 2019 and on the same day another Suo Motu Criminal revision in Suo Motu Crl.R.C No.1480 of 2023 as against Mr.K.K.S.S.R. Ramachandran, upon the Order dated 20.7.2023 of the Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhu (Designated Special court for MPs and MLAs) made in Spl. Case No.19 of 2019.
- The respondent states that he is a lawyer, or he claims himself to be one. He has claimed to have espoused multiple cases against the former Chief Minister and others resounding a public cause. He is conscious of his position. It is expected of him to be reasonable, responsible and gentlemanlike. However, the words he has uttered against the High court and Mr. Justice Anand Venkatesh in particular, denies him of holding any such status. At this juncture, it is to be appreciated that in furtherance of the said Suo Motu Revisions petitions, the respondent arranged a press conference voicing the concern of his political party. In the said press conference, the respondent had stated at 12.20 minutes that the Hon’ble Judge is picking and choosing the cases and he continues to affirm at 12.42 to 13.10 that the order for Suo Motu Revision cases is passed with a mala fide and motivated intention. He has openly accused the Judge of being biased and partisan in his approach.
Page No. 4 & Corrns:
-5-
- In the tirade against the High Court and the judge between 15.46 to 16.06 the respondent indulges in personal attack by stating that the Hon’ble Judge with a malafide intention, took Suo Motu Revision and is acting in partial in picking and choosing the cases. These comments create a bad impression in the minds of the viewers about the judges and denouncing the credibility of the Judiciary in the eyes of the public. The Courts are the last recourse for the citizens to assert their legal rights. The democratic set-up is guarded by the Courts. Sentinel of Democracy and the rule of law are the courts. By denigrating the courts and the Judges personally especially, when the charge is baseless deserves not only to be condemned but also such persons be prosecuted under the laws of contempt. It is submitted that this position is E.M. Sankaran Namboodripad v. T. Narayanan Nambiar, (1970) 2 SCC 325, the Supreme Court has condemned, in no uncertain terms, attacks made by politicians against the judiciary. The Hon’ble Court observed:
“The question thus in this case is whether the appellant has said anything which brings him out of the protection of Article 19(1)(a) and exposes him to a charge of contempt of court. It is obvious that the appellant has misguided himself about the true teachings of Marx, Engel and Lenin. He has misunderstood the attack by them on State and the laws as involving an attack on the judiciary. No doubt the courts, while upholding the laws and enforcing them, do give support to the State but they do not do so out of any impure motives. They do not range themselves on the side of the exploiting classes and indeed resist them when the law does not warrant an encroachment. To charge the judiciary as an instrument of oppression, the Judges as guided and dominated by class-hatred, class interests and class prejudices, instinctively favouring the reach against the poor is to draw a very distorted and poor picture of the judiciary. It is clear that it is an attack upon Judges which is calculated to raise in the minds of the people a general dissatisfaction with, and distrust of all judicial decisions. It weakens the authority of law and law courts.”
Page No. 5 & Corrns:
-6-
- I humbly submit that in the video, at 17.33 minutes, the respondent directly addresses the Hon’ble Judge Mr. Anand Venkatesh J as an unworthy person (நிலைகெட்ட மனிதர்) and from 18.57 to 19.10 he reiterates the Order was passed with mala-fide intention and cases are handpicked. From 19.55 to 20.48, the respondent states that the Suo Motu revision destroys the very criminal justice system. The press meeting of the respondent is only an attempt to browbeat the judiciary. The timing of the Press meet also proves that he is keen on intimidating the judge for having initiated action against the Ministers in the DMK Government.
- As has been held by the Supreme Court in Prashant Bhushan, In re (Contempt Matter), (2021) 1 SCC 745:
“The Constitution Bench thus holds, that a publication which attacks on individual Judges or the court as a whole with or without reference to particular case, casting unwarranted and defamatory aspersions upon the character or ability of the Judges, would come within the term of scandalising the Court. It is held, that such a conduct tends to create distrust in the popular mind and impair the confidence of the people in the courts, which are of prime importance to the litigants in the protection of their rights and liberties. It has been held, that it is not necessary to prove affirmatively, that there has been an actual interference with the administration of justice by reason of such defamatory statement and it is enough if it is likely, or tends in any way, to interfere with the proper administration of justice.”
“It could thus be seen, that it has been clearly held by the Constitution Bench, that a scurrilous attack on a Judge in respect of a judgment or past conduct has an adverse effect on the due administration of justice. The Constitution Bench has unambiguously held, that this sort of attack in a country like ours has the inevitable effect of undermining the confidence of the public in the Judiciary and if the confidence in the Judiciary goes, the due administration of justice definitely suffers. In the said case, after holding the contemnor O.P. Gupta guilty for contempt, this Court refused to accept the apology tendered by him finding that the apology coupled with fresh abuses can hardly be taken note of. However, taking a lenient view, this Court sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for two months.”
Page No. 6 & Corrns:
-7-
“78. The Indian Constitution has given a special role to the constitutional courts of this country. The Supreme Court is a protector of the fundamental rights of the citizens, as also is endowed with a duty to keep the other pillars of democracy i.e. the executive and the legislature, within the constitutional bounds. If an attack is made to shake the confidence that the public at large has in the institution of judiciary, such an attack has to be dealt with firmly. No doubt, that it may be better in many cases for the judiciary to adopt a magnanimously charitable attitude even when utterly uncharitable and unfair criticism of its operations is made out of bona fide concern for improvement. However, when there appears some scheme and design to bring about results which have the tendency of damaging the confidence in our judicial system and demoralise the Judges of the highest court by making malicious attacks, those interested in maintaining high standards of fearless, impartial and unbending justice will have to stand firmly. If such an attack is not dealt with, with requisite degree of firmness, it may affect the national honour and prestige in the comity of nations. Fearless and impartial courts of justice are the bulwark of a healthy democracy and the confidence in them cannot be permitted to be impaired by malicious attacks upon them. As observed by Krishna Iyer, J. in S. Mulgaokar, In re [S. Mulgaokar, In re, (1978) 3 SCC 339 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 402] , on which judgment, Shri Dave has strongly relied on, if the Court considers the attack on the Judge or Judges scurrilous, offensive, intimidatory or malicious beyond condonable limits, the strong arm of the law must, in the name of public interest and public justice, strike a blow on him who challenges the supremacy of the rule of law by fouling its source and stream.”
Judged by the aforesaid test, it is clear that the respondent has scandalised the Hon’ble Judge and the High Court by his irresponsible comments directly imputing motives to the Court.
- I humbly submit that the imputations were made without any basis and there is no specific reasons or grounds set out in the entire press meet to substantiate the plea of malafide intention which renders the said allegations contemptuous. It is an affront to judiciary. The action of the respondent scandalizes the authority of this Hon’ble Court and has reduced its Majesty. In the eyes of the public the Hon’ble Judges are sought to be ridiculed and
Page No. 7 & Corrns:
-8-
their stature reduced. I respectfully submit that the act of calling the due process of law as biased, partial, pick and choose, are not only unwarranted, but warrants severe action against the maker. The action also seems to be a concerted effort of these Political elements as he seems to have the blessings of his bosses inasmuch as none chose to chastise him.
- Be that as it may, the respondent by his vituperative language and action has directly interfered with the due course and administration of justice. I humbly submit that it is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Portfolio Judge for MPs and MLAs has taken Suo Moto Revision as against Mr.O.Pannerselvam , the former chief Minister in Suo Moto Crl.R.C No1524 of 2023 and Mrs.Valarmathi, another minister, in Suo Moto Crl.R.C No.1558 of 2023. The list may not end here. A further analysis of the proceeding against the high dignitaries might reveal shocking details. It has become a practice among the politicians to play with the judiciary. They misuse their office actively supported by the Public Prosecutors. Most of them are holding the office with the blessings of the Political party which they support. Instead of holding brief for the STATE, the Public prosecutors stand for their “masters”. Ultimately, it is the Rule of law that is the victim. The people’s faith in the system thereby takes a beating.
- It may not be out of place to mention that every criminal case registered against the Ministers for acts of malfeasance or misappropriation and corruption in the previous regime is closed without a proper investigation or trumped one. Unless the judges are conscious to the fraud played on the Judiciary, it is very difficult to secure the faith in the system. Men may come and go, the system is there to serve for eternity. By spoiling and misusing the system, its very existence becomes irrelevant and questionable.
Page No. 8 & Corrns:
-9-
- It should not be overlooked that the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made on 16.9.2020 in W.P (Civil) No.699/2016 is the cause for establishment of Special Courts for MPs and MLAs. Therefore, it is the primordial duty of the higher Courts to ensure the purity of judicial administration is maintained. I am pained to point out that the respondent is not singular in his utterances against the judiciary. Equally, it is not the first time he has taken recourse to such practices of speaking ill of the judiciary and the judges. In a programme at Anbagam Hall, Teynampet dated 14.02.2020, he had made an allegation that a person belonging to Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribe has been elevated as a Judge on account of the “alms” given by DMK party.
- This statement has far reaching consequences on the individuality of the Judges and the position they hold. It gives an impression as if they hold their post on account of the party in power (DMK). I humbly submit that this said remark gives a firm opinion that the judges hold office due to the “generosity” of the Ministers in the DMK government. This triggered a criminal case and the respondent has sought to quash the complaint. This Hon’ble Court by its order dated 21.2.2021 made in Crl.O.P No.20070/2020 had observed that
“10. When the allegations put against the accused carefully perused, the remarks made by the accused prima facie show that he has remarked that the people, except in Tamil Nadu, are idiots. He has also stated that till now, no one from the Schedule Caste become Judge of the High Court of Madhyapradesh. Only the leader Karunanithi, made Mr.Varadharajan, who belongs to Schedule Caste as Judge of High Court of Madras. Similarly, 7 or 8 Judges from the Scheduled Caste were also appointed at the alms rendered by the Dravidian Progressive Federation. The statements prima facie indicate the allegations targeted against Scheduled Caste. This Court restrains itself from expressing any views as to whether such utterance attracts the offence or not.
Page No. 9 & Corrns:
-10-
- The allegations prima facie show that such statement leads inference as if except the alms rendered by the Dravidian Progressive Federation, the members from Scheduled Caste would not have been become a Judge of the High Court. It is nothing but an humiliation and insult to the oppressed community. The entire statements made by the person are not in good taste. Intellectual debates have been forgotten by the so called leaders. On the other hand, under the guise of freedom guaranteed under the Constitution, the persons claiming to be public leaders spitting venum against opponents. It has become routine affairs. Such debate is not good for the society or the younger generation. The leaders are required to engage with an intellectual debate and not on personal grudge.”
- I humbly submit that against the said Judgment made in Crl.O.P No.20070/2020, the respondent herein preferred an appeal before Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same was disposed on 19.7.2021 observing as follows;
“A careful analysis of the speech shows that the Appellant indulged in intemperate rant which should have been avoided.”
Even after the observation of the supreme Court, the respondent has not chosen to remedy himself.
- I humbly submit that the conduct of the respondent establishes that he is in habit of denigrating the Courts repeatedly and as he is a lawyer, such misconduct deserves a treatment that would stand as a lesson for the rest of the community men to be wary of their words and action. I humbly submit that the conduct of the respondent undermines the respect, majesty and authority of this Hon’ble Court in the eyes of law. Moreover, the effect of the press conference held by the respondent gives an impression to the general public that the Judiciary is biased which causes the public to lose hope on Judiciary thereby the conduct of the respondent interferes the administration of Justice resulting in Criminal Contempt.
Page No. 10 & Corrns:
-11-
- I humbly submit that as the respondent had scandalized the Judiciary, interfered with due process of Judicial Proceedings in said Suo Motu cases and interfered with the administration of justice, for which prima facie criminal Contempt is made out. I humbly submit that the compulsion of the office forebears the learned Advocate General from triggering any action on the respondent. Although, a requisition for consent was also given to the learned Advocate General on 29th August 2023, so far no action has been taken on the same.
- I humbly submit that the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in its decision made in S.N. Nagaraja Rao vs Chikkachennappa And Ors dated 2.1.1981 reported in 1981 (1) KarLJ 201 had observed that the consent of Advocate General prescribed in Section 15(1)(b) of the Act for making a motion under the provision is only directory.
- I humbly submit that it is well-settled law that the purpose of getting consent from Advocate General is to stop frivolous litigation end up consuming the time of this Hon’ble Court whereas in this case the statement issued by the respondent who is holding a prominent post in the ruling party would give a huge adverse impact. I humbly submit that considering the nature and gravity of the situation, in the interest of Justice, it is the need of the hour to proceed in this Contempt, shorn of the consent of Advocate General for the State of Tamilnadu, who is yet to trigger the action expected of his high office.
- I state that the dignity of the Courts are not at the mercy of any individual. I am seeking of this Hon’ble court to initiate criminal contempt under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act as well as under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court affirmed this legal
Page No. 11 & Corrns:
-12-
position in Prashant Bhushan, in re, (2021) 1 SCC 745 by holding that there is no requirement for taking consent, including the learned Attorney General (AG of the State in this case) because the Court is exercising its inherent powers to issue a notice for contempt. It is equally well settled, that once the Court takes cognizance, the matter is purely between the Court and the contemnor.
- Hence, I submit that the action of the respondent is a clear interference of the administration of justice and also creating aversion on the public mind .Therefore, it is attracted to Section 15 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. Therefore, this Hon’ble court has power to take contempt proceedings against the respondent contemplated Art,215 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for scandalizing the office of a Judge of this Hon’ble Court in particular and the High Court as an institution in general and for interfering with the administration of justice by attributing bias and impure motives to the orders of this Hon’ble Court, and thereby render justice.
Solemnly affirmed at Chennai on }
this 12th day of Sep. 2023 } BEFORE ME
and signed his name in my }
presence. The affidavit has been }
explained in Tamil. }
Last Page No.12 Corrns : ADVOCATE, CHENNAI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Contempt Jurisdiction)
Cont.No. /2023
1.. A. Shankar (47 )
S/o Achimuthu
No.12/6, TNHB Flats
Maduravoyal, Chennai. 600095
- G.Karthi (21)
S/o. Govindarajan (Late)
Chettinadu School of Law,
Rajiv Gandhi Salai,
Kelambakkam-603 103
Chengalpattu District. ….Petitioners
-Vs-
R.S.Bharathi
S/o D.J.Raman
No.18, 29th Street,
Thillai Ganga Nagar
Nanganallur, Chennai-61 ……..Respondent
CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 11 OF
CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971.
The petitioner’s address for service of all notices and processes is that of his counsel Mr. P.VIJENDRAN, V.CHITHRA, SINDHUZA.M.S, AGALYA.M and MANIKUYIL .K, Advocates, 170, “Sai Kripa Building”, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai – 600 001.
The respondent’s address for service of all notices and processes is the same as stated above.
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for scandalizing the office of a Judge of this Hon’ble Court in particular and the High Court as an institution in general and for interfering with the administration of justice by attributing bias and impure motives to the orders of this Hon’ble Court, and thereby render justice.
Dated at Chennai on this the 12th day of Sep. 2023.
COUNSELS FOR PETITIONER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Contempt Jurisdiction)
Cont.Pet. No. /2023
- Shankar (47 ) & Anr. ….Petitioners
-Vs-
R.S.Bharathi ….Respondent
INDEX TO THE TYPED SET
| S.No
|
Date |
Description |
Page No. |
| 1. |
15.04.2005 |
Proceedings of the Speaker of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, Chennai-9.
|
|
| 2. |
17.12.2020 |
Order in Crl.M.P.No.8318 & 8320 /2020 in Crl.O.P.No. 20070/2020 this Hon’ble court issued notice to de-facto complainant -and its further order dated 22.02.2021
|
|
| 3. |
11.11.2022 |
Order in Crl.A.NO. 1845 / 2022 the Hon’ble Apex court ordered notice -and its further order dated 13.03.2023.
|
|
| 4. |
12.12.2022 |
Order in Spl. S.C.No. 20 / 2019 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur.
|
|
| 5. |
17.03.2023 |
Order in C.C.No. 13/2019 passed by the Learned Addl Spl Court for Trial of Criminal Case related to elected members of Parliament and members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu Chennai.
|
|
| 6.
|
20.07.2023 |
Order in Spl. S.C.No. 19 / 2019 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur.
|
|
| 7. |
10.08.2023 |
Order in Suo Motu Crl.R.C.No. 1419/2023 against Spl.S.C.No.3/2022 and this Hon’ble court issued direction to the Addl. Public Prosecutor and Registry to issue notice to the accused and its further orders dated 07.09.2023 and 14.09.2023.
|
|
| 8. |
23.08.2023 |
Order in Suo Motu Crl.R.C.No.1480/2023 against Spl.S.C.No.19/2019 and this Hon’ble court issued direction to the Addl. Public Prosecutor and Registry to issue notice to the accused.
-2-
|
|
| 9. |
23.08.2023 |
Order in Suo Motu Crl.R.C.No.1481/2023 against Spl.S.C.No.20/2019 and this Hon’ble court issued direction to the Addl. Public Prosecutor and Registry to issue notice to the accused.
|
|
| 10. |
31.08.2023 |
Order in Suo Motu Crl.R.C.No.1524/2023 against Spl.S.C.No.7/2012 and this Hon’ble court issued direction to the Addl. Public Prosecutor and issue notice to the accused.
|
|
| 11. |
08.09.2023 |
Order in Suo Motu Crl.R.C.No.1558/2023 against C.C.No.16/ 2011 and this Hon’ble court issued direction to the Addl. Public Prosecutor and to issue notice to the accused.
|
|
| 12. |
Nil |
Interview given by the respondent to the media with transcription both in Tamil and English
|
|
| 13. |
Nil |
Interview given by the respondent to the media with transcription both in Tamil and English
|
|
| 14.
|
09.09.2023 |
Editorial page of MURASOLI |
certified that the above said documents are all true copies of original.
Dated at Chennai this the 12th day of Sep. 2023.
COUNSELS FOR PETITIONER
CHENNAI: DISTRICT
HIGH COURT: MADRAS
Cont.Pet.No. /2023
AFFIDAVIT
M/s
P.VIJENDRAN(MS.1271/98)
V.CHITHRA(MS.338/01)
SINDHUZA M.S.(MS.4796/19)
AGALYA.M(MS.6738/22)
MANIKUYIL.K(MS.3826/23)
COUNSELS FOR PPETITIONR vijenthiren
