Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. PRAKASH, R. HEMALATHA, JJ.
High Court of Madras, Chennai - Appellant
Versus
R. Krishnamurthy, Advocate, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi - Respondent
Suo Motu Crl. Contempt Petition No.766 of 2021
Decided On : 17-12-2021
Criminal Contempt - Suo Motu - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 12 - During lockdown period, police stopped a car which was driven by one law college student and questioned her and asked her if she has requisite pass for moving outside, which was necessary then - An altercation is said to have ensued between student and police and latter challaned former, for violation of lockdown conditions - Soon her mother, Advocate, came to place in her car and is said to have abused and berated police in public gaze, which was captured in video and was widely circulated in social media - A Respondent’s reply affidavit shows that he has alleged that learned Judge had condemned entire legal fraternity during hearing of anticipatory bail application and since he felt hurt, he recorded audio speech and circulated it – Should respondent be discharged from this case, to determine which, it is imperative for court to discuss background in which he had made imputations in impugned speech – Held, very recording of impugned audio message and placing it in public domain by circulating it in WhatsApp during pendency of anticipatory bail application, would undoubtedly fall within contours of contempt - Statement the respondent “Therefore, My Lord, as far as this case is concerned, you are biased. It is clearly revealed, that Your Lordship Mr.Justice M.Dhandapani is biased, unilateral and is in favour of police department. Therefore you shall recuse yourself from this case, My Lord.” would also squarely fall within ambit of contempt - Respondent has given a veiled threat to learned Judge by saying “If it is observed in order, I need to go to Supreme Court and file SLP only to expunge same. Since you have acted in a biased manner, I once again humbly and most respectfully submit that you shall recuse from this case” - What respondent had told learned Judge is that if he (the learned Judge) were to record his anguish in order, he would take matter to Supreme Court and have same expunged - This is, in considered opinion, clearly tantamount to interfering with administration of justice “in any other manner”, as provided under Section 2(c)(iii) of Contempt of Courts Act – Respondent guilty of contempt - Criminal Contempt Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
P.N. Prakash, J.
(Prayer: Suo Motu Criminal Contempt Proceedings initiated against the alleged contemnor as per order dated 18.06.2021 passed in Crl.O.P. No.10387 of 2021 in Cr. No.192 of 2021 vide ROC No.2761/2021/OS.)
1. The instant suo motu criminal contempt proceedings has been initiated against Mr.R. Krishnamurthy, the respondent herein, pursuant to an order dated 18.06.2021 passed by M. Dhandapani, J. in Crl.O.P. No.10837 of 2021 vide ROC No.2761/2021/OS.
2. The facts in brief leading to the initiation of the present suo motu criminal contempt proceedings are as under:
2.2 In connection with this unsavory incident, a case in G-7 Chetpet Police Station Crime No.192 of 2021 was registered against Tanuja Rajan and Preeti Rajan by the police. Apprehending arrest, the mother-daughter duo filed a petition for anticipatory bail in the Court of Session, Chennai, which was dismissed. Thereafter, they filed Crl.O.P.No.10387 of 2021 in the High Court, seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The said anticipatory bail petition was heard via video conferencing by Justice M. Dhandapani on 15.06.2021.
2.3 While so, the respondent, who claims himself to be an Advocate of the Supreme Court, but, was not the counsel on record for the accused in the anticipatory bail petition, was present in the hearing of the case by video conferencing.
2.4 During the hearing on 15.06.2021, the learned Judge, observing that the issue involved in the said petition had a larger ramification with regard to the conduct of the members of the legal fraternity, vis-a-vis, the officials of the Government, and that the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, being the regulatory authority for the legal profession and also the authority concerned for taking action against its errant members, impleaded them as a party respondent in the criminal original petition. The Bar Council was directed to file a status report, stating the mechanism that is in place for taking action against the members of the legal fraternity and also the action that has been taken against such of those advocates, who have misbehaved in public places with the officials on duty. Further, the learned Judge appears to have ventilated certain grievances orally at the deteriorating standards of the legal profession and thereafter, adjourned the case to 17.06.2021, for further hearing.
2.5 After the hearing on 15.06.2021 was over, the respondent has recorded his own monologue on his mobile phone, attacking the learned Judge personally, and has circulated the same widely on WhatsApp.
2.6 On this audio recording, the learned Judge has, by order dated 18.06.2021, directed initiation of suo motu proceedings for criminal contempt against the respondent, under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
2.7 The Hon’ble Chief Justice directed the matter to be placed before the Bench concerned. Cognizance was taken, notice was issued to the respondent and the respondent appeared in person on 01.09.2021.
3. The free English translation of the speech of the respondent, imputing motives against the learned Judge, which made the latter direct the Registry to initiate suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against the respondent, is as under:
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
