The main legal point established is the offense of perjury under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, which prohibits making false statements in affidavits and constitutes giving false evidence.

Judgment

SETHI, J.

( 1 ) PROCLAIMING to be its President, the respondent Sh. R. Karuppan filed a writ petition in the name of Madras High Court Advocates Association praying for issuance of writ of Quo Warranto against the Honble Chief Justice of India. He also prayed this Court to determine the age of the first respondent in the writ petition as 1-11-1934 and further that the first respondent had attained the age of superannuation on 31/10/1999 and had ceased to hold the office since then. In support of the averments made in the writ petition Shri R. Karuppan (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent") also filed an affidavit.

( 2 ) BEFORE the matter was taken up for admission, the Registry of this Court received a petition signed by a number of Advocates claiming to be the members of the said Association and alleging that the Association had not authorised the respondent to file any writ petition in the name of the Association. Ignoring the disputes stated to be existing amongst the members of the Advocates Association, we proceeded to consider the writ petition on the assumption that the petition was either filed on behalf of the Association or by the respondent on his own in his individual capacity as well, particularly when the prayer made was for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto. In the said petition, the respondent had raised the question of the alleged disputed age of the Honble Chief Justice of India. THE writ petition was dismissed in limine observing :"now Mr. Karuppan made averments in the present writ petition that the petitioner submits that the dispute which has arisen as early as in 1991, undetermined by the President and the operation of Article 217 is still operative and within the jurisdiction of the President. He further averred that the petitioner submits that the conduct of the President of India, ever since the controversy arose till date only proves that the dispute has never been determined by him or his predecessor. He further averred that the press note released by the Government of India to the Press Information Bureau on 23/10/2000, reached the notice of the petitioner only after 23-11-2000. In the context of this statement he concealed the fact that copy of the said press note was included in the files of the contempt proceedings initiated against S. K. Sundaram as early as 7-11-2000. Mr. Karuppan admitted before us that he himself appeared in this Court as Advocate for S. K. Sundaram on 20-11-2000. "

( 3 ) NOTICE was issued to the respondent requiring him to show cause why prosecution proceedings shall not be initiated against him for offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code.

( 4 ) DURING the pendency of these proceedings 600 and odd persons, claiming to be the members of the Advocates Association submitted in writing that the Association had not passed any Resolution regarding the age of the CJI and that Mr. Karuppan was not authorised to file any case representing the Association. As the notice was issued against the respondent in his individual capacity, we granted him time to file reply to the notice, if he so desired. In reply, the respondent has reiterated the submissions made earlier in the writ petition filed by him. It is submitted that he believed bona fide that the President of India had not determined the age of the Chief Justice of India and even if any determination has been made under Article 217 of the Constitution, the same is not conclusive for all times. It is contended that the respondent came to know of the Press Information Bureau release, informing that the age of the Chief Justice of India stood determined by the President of India as early as on 16-5-1991 only in December, 2000. The respondent has submitted that he is not guilty of offence of perjury.

( 5 ) WE have heard the respondent who has appeared in person and examined the whole record.

( 6 ) PROVED or admitted facts of the case are that one S. K. Sundaram, Advocate sent a telegraphic communication t