The main legal point established is that the Advocate General did not have the statutory power to review the earlier order and that the petition for recall was not maintainable.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records and quash the order dated 27.09.2021 passed in Recall Petition No.1 of 2021 in Consent Petition No.1 of 2021 by the learned Advocate General, High Court, Madras.)

1. This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, assailing an order dated 27.09.2021, passed by the present Advocate General of Tamil Nadu recalling an order dated 31.03.2021 passed by his predecessor by which the latter had declined consent for initiating contempt proceedings under Sec.15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

2.1 The petition arises in the backdrop of the following facts:

a) Thiru S. Gurumurthy, the petitioner herein, is stated to have made a speech in a public meeting on 14.01.2021 on the occasion of the anniversary of the Tamil political weekly Tughlak', in which, he is alleged to have remarked that the judges in the Supreme Court and other courts are appointed by politicians by extraneous means.

b) The respondent herein, a senior member of the Madras Bar, considered the said speech of the petitioner to be an affront to the majesty of the Court, and filed a petition under Sect. 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and sought leave to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of court against the petitioner. This petition was taken on file as Contempt Petition 1 of 2021, by the then learned Advocate General. Upon issuance of notice, the respondent therein entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit dated 11.03.2021, contending that his speech was not contumacious.

c) By a detailed order dated 31.03.2021, the learned Advocate General, declined sanction and, has inter alia observed as under:

“Applying the law laid down in the above judgments, if one views the statements made by the respondent in its entirety, it would be seen that the statement was made impromptu at a question and answer session and the very next day, the respondent issued a clarification which has been referred to above. If the statement is read in its entirety, it would be seen that there was no intention to either scandalise the court or to interfere with the administration of justice. Though some of the remarks pertaining to the judiciary could have been avoided, the statement taken in its entirety, was meant to explain the systematic flaws and delays in the enquiry, investigation, administrative, executive and legal process and it was also based on the personal experience of the respondent in pursuing certain cases against politicians.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and by application of the law laid down in the three judgements cited above, I do not think any case is made out to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the respondent. Accordingly the consent sought for is not granted.”

2.2 On the very next day, on 01.04.2021, the respondent herein filed I.A 1 of 2021 before the Advocate General for recalling the order dated 31.03.2021, fundamentally on five grounds and they are as under:

a) The learned Advocate General had relied upon three judgments of the Supreme Court which are no longer good law.

b) The learned Advocate General has not taken into consideration 12 decisions which the respondent claims to have submitted to show that the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court are no longer good law.

c) The third ground is a continuation of the second where the respondent contends that in view of the 12 judgments, cited by him, the earlier order dated 31.03.2021 ought to be recalled.

d) The fourth and the fifth grounds are to the effect that the Advocate General had granted time till 31.03.2021 to produce translations and judgments. However, the learned Advocate General, owing to the pressure of work he might have forgotten it, and had mistakenly passed the order on