V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

Preamble

"Lawyers ought to know that at least as long as lawful redress is available to aggrieved lawyers, there is no justification for lawyers to join in an illegal conspiracy to commit a gross, criminal contempt of court, thereby striking at the heart of the liberty conferred on every person by our Constitution. Strike is an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice. The principle is that those who have duties to discharge in a court of justice are protected by the law and are shielded by the law to discharge those duties, the advocates in return have duty to protect the courts. For, once conceded that lawyers are above the law and the law courts, there can be no limit to lawyers taking the law into their hands to paralyse the working of the courts.

It is high time that the Supreme Court and the High Court make it clear beyond the doubt that they will not tolerate any interference from anybody or authority in the daily administration of justice. For in no other way can the Supreme Court and the High Court maintain the high position and exercise the great powers conferred by the Constitution and the law to do justice without fear or favour, affection or ill-will."

(H.M.Seervai, a distinguished jurist-quoted by the Supreme Court in Harish Uppal (Ex.Capt) Vs. Union of India reported in [2003 (2) SCC 45]

"If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted to it, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. Otherwise, the very cornerstone of our Constitutional scheme will give way and with it will disappear the rule of law and the civilized life in the society"

(In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra reported in [1995 (2) SCC 284]

History of the case:

2. This contempt proceeding was initiated suo-motu by a Division Bench vide its order dated 16.9.2015, when the Contemnor barged into a court hall along with a group of lawyers shouting slogans, called out the Advocates present therein to come out, picked up an argument with a lawyer who refused to come out and challenged the learned Judges to take action if they dared. The contemnor appeared before us on 30.11.2015 and sought a copy of the proceedings dated 16.9.2015 to enable him to file a response. After receiving the copy of the proceedings dated 16.9.2015, the contemnor indulged in various tactics which we have recorded in our orders dated 10.12.2015, 7.1.2016 and 19.1.2016. Ultimately, the Contemnor filed a reply dated 27.1.2016. The opportunity given to the Contemnor to submit a reply, was used by him (i) to make scandalous allegations against the Presiding Judge of the Division Bench, which initiated contempt action (ii) to make allegations against the learned Judge who was part of our division bench (NKKJ) (iii) to make a scurrilous attack on others including women lawyers and (iv) to demand the summoning of a sitting Hon ble Judge of the Supreme court apart from others. Therefore, this Court rejected such allegations as an outrageous attempt by the Contemnor to denigrate and slander the judiciary and we adjourned the case to 4.2.2016 for framing of charges. In the meantime, finding that the contents of his counter were not published in the print media, he circulated its contents through Whatsapp and Facebook posts.

Charges framed against the Contemnor:

3. Thereafter, this Court framed charges against the Contemnor on 4.2.2016, which were duly served upon him. The charges framed against him are as follows:-

"(1) That you, W.Peter Rameshkumar, the Contemnor above named, on 16.9.2015 at about 10.50 AM, while the court proceedings were on in Court Hall No.2 and being conducted by a Division Bench comprising of Hon'ble Justices R.Sudhakar and V.M.Velumani, trooped into the court hall without wearing formal robes.

(2) That you, W.Peter Rameshkumar, before entering into the court hall, the group of alleged advocates led by you, were hear