Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M.S.RAMESH, A.D.MARIA CLETE, JJ.
B.Stalin – Appellant
Versus
The Registrar General, Madras High Court – Respondent
W.P.(MD)SR.No.53343 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)SR.Nos.53345 & 53346 of 2011
Decided on : 25-11-2024
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.]
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing Justice C.S.Karnan to restrain from making public statements either written or oral against brother constitutional authorities or any wing of the judiciary or advocates in the public media both visual and others and further not to indulge in any castigating act of defamatory, scurrilous, derogatory, libelous, scandalous and ruthless outcries giving due respect to his oath of office taken on the Constitution of India.
This Writ Petition at S.R., stage has been posted before this Court for maintainability.
2. Under Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, no court shall entertain any proceeding against a Judge for any act thing or word committed, done or spoken by him when, or in the course of, acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official or judicial function.
3. Since the petitioner in this Writ Petition seeks for a Mandamus to restrain a named sitting Judge of the Madras High Court [now retired], which is impermissible in law, this Writ Petition is not maintainable and the objections made by the Registry in this regard is sustainable.
4. Resultantly, the Registry is directed to return the case papers to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after obtaining his acknowledgment.
5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition at S.R., stage is rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions also stand rejected.
AI
A Writ Petition seeking to restrain a sitting Judge is not maintainable under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, which protects Judges from proceedings for actions taken in their official capacity.
A writ petition under Article 226 becomes infructuous when the relief sought is no longer relevant or necessary.
Courts are not to impose sanctions or guidelines on how media or social media operates; it is for other agencies based on policy decisions taken by the legislature or executive arm.
The Bar Council is mandated to investigate complaints against advocates and enforce prohibitory orders to maintain the integrity of the legal profession.
A writ petition under Article 226 becomes infructuous if the respondent party dies, eliminating the basis for the action sought.
Legal professionals are bound by ethical standards to respect each other's practice, and an undertaking to refrain from interference can resolve disputes regarding professional conduct.
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
