Back
1995 Supreme(Mad) 823
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUNACHALAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THANGAMANI
In Re: Rajendran and Others, Contemners
Suo Motu Contempt Appln.No.286 of 1995
Decided On : 29-09-1995
R. Sai Bharath, Mr. S. Gopalarathnam, Mr. Rubert Barnabas, Mr. K. Venkatakrishnan, Advocates.
The Court held that the police officers had obstructed the course of justice by closing the gates of the court complex and that the Advocates had committed contempt of court by entering the chambers of the Magistrate and pressurising him to pass orders in a particular way. However, the Court accepted the unconditional apologies tendered by the contemnors and dropped further action against them, except for two Advocates who had tendered belated apologies and whose apologies were not found to be sincere.
Headnote:
[CRIMINAL CONTEMPT] - [SUO MOTO CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS] - [CONTEMPT OF COURT] - [OBSTRUCTION OF COURT PROCEEDINGS] - [POLICE OFFICERS CLOSING GATES OF COURT COMPLEX] - [ADVOCATES ENTERING CHAMBERS OF MAGISTRATE AND PRESSURISING HIM TO PASS ORDERS IN A PARTICULAR WAY] - [UNCONDITIONAL APOLOGIES TENDERED BY CONTEMPTORS] - [ACCEPTANCE OF APOLOGIES AND DROPPING OF FURTHER ACTION AGAINST CONTEMPTORS] - [ADMONISHMENT OF CONTEMPTORS] - [NEED FOR DISCIPLINE AND SELF-REGULATION IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION] - [IMPORTANCE OF LEGAL EDUCATION AND APPRENTICESHIP] - [DUTY OF BAR COUNCIL AND ASSOCIATIONS OF ADVOCATES TO ENFORCE RULES OF DISCIPLINE] - [NEED FOR REVIVAL OF COMMITTEE TO SOLVE PROBLEMS BETWEEN BAR AND LAW ENFORCING AGENCY] - [PROHIBITION ON MAGISTRATES CONDUCTING PROCEEDINGS IN CHAMBERS] - [PROHIBITION ON MEMBERS OF BAR ENTERING CHAMBERS OF JUDICIAL OFFICERS WITHOUT PERMISSION] - [NEED FOR REFINEMENT IN THE LEGAL FRATERNITY] - [IMPORTANCE OF MAINTAINING THE MAJESTY OF THE PROCESS OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE].
Fact of the Case:
In the instant case, a group of police officers had closed the gates of a court complex, preventing ingress and egress to the litigants, the members of the public and Bar, the Court staff and others. Subsequently, a group of Advocates had entered the chambers of a Magistrate and pressurised him to pass orders in a particular way.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the police officers had obstructed the course of justice by closing the gates of the court complex and that the Advocates had committed contempt of court by entering the chambers of the Magistrate and pressurising him to pass orders in a particular way. However, the Court accepted the unconditional apologies tendered by the contemnors and dropped further action against them, except for two Advocates who had tendered belated apologies and whose apologies were not found to be sincere.
Issues: 1. Whether the police officers had obstructed the course of justice by closing the gates of the court complex? 2. Whether the Advocates had committed contempt of court by entering the chambers of the Magistrate and pressurising him to pass orders in a particular way? 3. Whether the apologies tendered by the contemnors should be accepted?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the police officers had obstructed the course of justice by closing the gates of the court complex, as it had caused inconvenience to the litigants, the members of the public and Bar, the Court staff and others, and had prevented them from accessing the court premises. 2. The Court held that the Advocates had committed contempt of court by entering the chambers of the Magistrate and pressurising him to pass orders in a particular way, as it had amounted to interference with the administration of justice. 3. The Court accepted the unconditional apologies tendered by the contemnors, except for two Advocates who had tendered belated apologies and whose apologies were not found to be sincere, as the Court was of the view that the contemnors had acted in the heat of the moment and without realising the consequences of their actions.
Final Decision: The Court accepted the unconditional apologies tendered by the contemnors and dropped further action against them, except for two Advocates who had tendered belated apologies and whose apologies were not found to be sincere. The Court also admonished the two Advocates and discharged them.
ARUNACHALAM, J.
A storm, not one natural, had blown over the campus, which accommodates the Courts of certain Metropolitan Magistrates and Judicial Magistrates, in Saidapet on 26-7-1995. The unusual impact of the storm had led to public dismay and has anguished this Court, the consequence of which is the initiation of this suo moto contempt proceedings
2. The manner in which these proceedings stood initiated can be best noticed from the order pronounced by us on 7-8-1995, the relevant portion of which reads as hereunder :-
"The Honble the Chief Justice, on receipt of a telegraph from Mrs. T. Lakshmi Bharathi. Advocate, dated 26-7-1995, as well as certain other complaints inclusive of a petition signed by 45 Advocates of Saidapet Bar, coupled with a resolution passed by the Advocates Association, Madras, had called for a report even on the initial material regarding the actual happenings at the Saidapet Metropolitan Magistrates Courts campus on 26-7-1995 from about 1O a.m. to late evening after a preliminary enquiry by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, after conducting enquiry, during the course of which he had reduced into writing statements of certain persons, forwarded two reports to the Honble Chief Justice. From those reports it is prima facie seen that before Natarajan, and accused in a registered crime, could enter into the Court premises to surrender along with his Advocates at or about 11-30 a.m. on 26-7-1995, the Advocate as well as Natarajan were taken away by the police forcibly. In the second report, after examination of more number of witnesses, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has definitely stated as hereunder" *
On a careful consideration of the above statements and also the information collected from other sources it is transparent that the police officials alone are responsible for the closure of the gates.
"The report also states that the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, who is the administrative head of Saidapet Unit was not aware of the closure of the gates, since he was sitting in Court and conducting proceedings. According to the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, nobody especially the police of any rank neither approached him seeking permission to close the gate nor informed him about the closure subsequently. The other Magistrates in the campus were also unaware of the closure of the entrance gates 2A. Statements forwarded along with the report of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate show that even around 10 a.m. on 26-7-1995, Grade - I Police Constable attached to J-4 Police Station was found closing the northern gate in the Court campus and when he was questioned about such closure, he replied that on account of a proposed procession such closure was needed. It is further seen from the statement of P. Krishnamurthy, Grade I Constable of J-4 Police Station attached to Court Sub Jail that he had closed the gate on the instructions received from Thiru Sathivel, Inspector of Police, J-1 Police Station. Statements of number of witness disclose that between 10 a.m. and 3-45 p.m. on 26-7-1995, the northern gate of the Court campus was completely closed while the southern entrance was partially closed, in that one door was inaccessibly closed, while the other door was partially kept open. Certain photographs have also been forwarded to the Honble Chief Justice along with a complaint from a member of the bar
3. Of late, throughout the country certain sad events are taking place, which tend to affect the administration of justice. The happening on 26-7-1995 in the Court campus of the Metropolitan Magistrates in Saidapet, both inside and just outside it, is bound to shock the conscience of any reasonable individual. On the one side, it prima facie appears, on the report of the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate that it was the police force, which was responsible for the closure of the gates, while on the other side from the statement of the Presiden
