The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of genuine apology in contempt proceedings, the seriousness of contemptuous acts, and the factors to be considered while awarding punishment for contempt.

1. Consequent to certain untoward incidents having taken place on 04.09.2013, one of us (C.T.SELVAM, J.) recorded a memorandum of proceedings which reads as follows:

"A section of Advocates practising at the Madurai Bench of this Court observed boycott on 04.09.2013. Other counsel present in Court were willing to part-take in proceedings. Presumably owing to boycott by sections of Advocates, litigants were present in large numbers.

2. I commenced proceedings at 10.30 a.m and upon hearing counsel and a few of the litigants, I passed orders in a few matters. 15 minutes into the proceedings, a group of advocates led by Mr.Peter Ramesh Kumar approached the Court raising slogans and upon entering my Court hall, Mr.Peter Ramesh Kumar informed that they were observing boycott. Mr.Thangapandiyan, retired Principal of the Madurai Law College, a practising advocate, who was on his legs, continued with his submissions. At such instance, Mr.Peter Ramesh Kumar, proceeded to take hold of Mr.Thangapandiyan and sought to drag him out. Mr.Thangapandiyan resisted. Thereafter, Mr.Peter Ramesh Kumar, with the help of few others dragged Mr.Thangapandiyan, out of the Court hall.

There was commotion in the Court hall, some of the advocates challenging the boycott call and others challenging the resistance thereto. Having raised the question if any counsel wished to proceed with their case and being met with silence, I retired to chambers.

3. Being of the view that the conduct of Mr.Peter Ramesh Kumar is gross contempt committed in my presence and hearing, I direct the Registry to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings and pursuant to the Article 215 of the Constitution of India. List the matter before Court on 11.09.2013 at 10.30 a.m."

2. On instructions, the Registry has placed the matter before the Court in Suo Motu Contempt Petition (MD) No.965 of 2013 on 11.09.2013. A further order to the following effect was made "Notice to contemnor Mr.Peter Ramesh Kumar returnable on 25.09.2013. Notice may be effected both at his Chamber address as also his residential address. Considering the seriousness of the matter and the institutional importance, the Registry is directed to place the matter before My Lord the Acting Chief Justice for hearing of the matter by a large bench, of which I may be a part." It needs mention that as against the Judges impression that the matter was to be placed and heard by a 'Large Bench', the Registry's note to the Honourable Chief Justice had read 'Larger Bench'. Honourable Chief Justice passed an administrative order to the following effect.

"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 travelle