The court affirmed that public criticisms and unfounded allegations against judges constitute contempt, undermining judicial authority and integrity.

1. The Great Poet Thiruvalluvar said in Thirukural :

(Vernacular matter omitted)

The meaning of this Kural is this:

"It would be folly not to fear of what is to be feared. The truly wise will fear of what is to be feared."

We are reminded of this Kural while dealing with this suo motu contempt petition.

2. Mr. Karuppan, former President of Madras High Court Advocates Association, who has put in more than 25 years of practice as an advocate, thinking that he is involving in heroic and courageous acts, has challenged the majesty of law, thereby landing himself in the trouble of facing the contempt proceedings before the Full Bench of this Court.

3. This has got a chequered history which is as follows :

"(a) Karuppan, an Advocate of this Court, as a party in - person, claiming himself as a best Rifle shooter, filed various writ petitions and the contempt petition against the Chennai Rifle Club and its office bearers as well as the Government seeking for the direction to the Government for vesting the Chennai Rifle Club with the State Government on the ground of various irregularities committed by one Sivanthi Adityan, the Secretary of the Chennai Rifle Club, and to permit him to have a training in the Coaching Camp and to participate in the National Rifle Association of India and for other directions.

(b) These petitions came up before the Division Bench comprising of M. Karpagavinayagam, J. and S. Ashok Kumar, J. During the pendency of those petitions, it was brought to the notice by the lawyer appearing for Sivanthi Adityan that Karuppan distributed pamphlets among lawyers in the High Court premises criticising the judicial functions of the First Bench presided by the Chief Justice and also the Second Bench presided by Justice V. S. Sirpurkar who decided earlier on the same issue. On being satisfied that there was a prima facie case, a suo motu contempt was initiated against Karuppan by the Bench and opportunity was given to him to file his explanation and make his submissions. After hearing all the matters, the said Division Bench while dismissing all the writ petitions, etc. filed by Karuppan, found him guilty under S.2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act in the suo motu contempt petition and sentenced him to pay a fine of Re.1/- to be paid in one month, in default to undergo one day simple imprisonment. These orders were passed on 5-12-2003.

(C) Aggrieved over this, Mr. Karuppan, on 9-12-2003, filed the petition with an affidavit before the First Bench praying the Chief Justice to post the said matter again before the same Division Bench so that he would argue for recalling the earlier order dated 5-12-2003 on the ground that the said order was a biased one. The Hon'ble Chief Justice however posted the matter before another Division Bench comprised of P. D. Dinakaran, J. and F. M. Ibrahim Kalifullah, J. The matter came up before the said Division Bench on 15-12-2003. Next day, i.e. on 16-12-2003, the matter was heard by the said Bench. There, Mr. Karuppan argued that the earlier order dated 5-12-2003 passed by the Division Bench (MKVJ and SAJ) was to be recalled on the ground of bias, as MKVJ and Sivanthi Adithyan are family friends. The said application was dismissed by the said Bench (PDDJ and FMIKJ) on the same day i.e. 16-12-2003. However, an observation was made by the said Bench that their order would not prevent the Hon'ble Chief Justice to post it before the same Bench for further orders.

(d) Mtr. Karuppan presented ano