Madras High Court Inquiry Confirms District Judge Misused Power for Personal Vendetta - 2025-09-25

Madras High Court Inquiry Confirms District Judge Misused Power for Personal Vendetta

Chennai – A damning inquiry report ordered by the Madras High Court has substantiated grave allegations of judicial misconduct against Pa.U. Chemmal, the Principal District and Sessions Judge of Kancheepuram. The report, prepared by the Registrar (Vigilance), confirmed that the judge weaponized his judicial authority to settle personal scores, leading the High Court to initiate urgent disciplinary measures.

Justice N. Satish Kumar, who has been overseeing the matter, reviewed the inquiry findings and directed the High Court Registry to place the report before both the Vigilance Committee and the Transfer Committee. This move signals the commencement of formal disciplinary proceedings and a likely immediate transfer of the judge, whom the court deemed "not conducive" to continue in his current post.

The inquiry's conclusions affirm that the District Judge engaged in a calculated abuse of power, stemming from a personal dispute with his former Personal Security Officer (PSO). "The findings substantiate a misuse of judicial power," Justice Kumar observed, emphasizing that "appropriate disciplinary steps should be taken against the erring judge at the earliest opportunity."

---

The Genesis of the Controversy: A Minor Dispute Escalates

The controversy originated from a seemingly minor altercation at a bakery owned by the PSO's father-in-law. Two complaints were filed at the Walajabad Police Station following a dispute over product quality, one by a woman named Parvathi and another by an associate of the PSO. However, the parties quickly reached an amicable settlement, and the police closed the complaints on the same day.

This resolution was unacceptable to District Judge Chemmal. According to the inquiry report, the judge, suspecting his former PSO was spreading false information about him, harbored personal animosity. He allegedly pressured the local police inspector to resurrect the closed complaints and register First Information Reports (FIRs). When the police showed reluctance, the judge reportedly threatened punitive action, compelling the registration of two FIRs against both parties involved in the original bakery dispute.

The FIR against the PSO and his family notably included charges under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, setting the stage for the judge's subsequent judicial overreach.

Weaponizing the Law: The Suo Motu Orders

With the FIRs registered, Judge Chemmal proceeded to issue two extraordinary suo motu orders that drew the immediate scrutiny of the Madras High Court.

1. The Externment Order (September 4): Invoking Section 10 of the SC/ST Act, the judge ordered the externment of the PSO, his father-in-law, and others from the district. He then summoned the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), M. Sankar Ganesh, to report on the order's implementation.

2. The Remand Order (September 8): When DSP Ganesh appeared before the court, he was allegedly made to wait from morning until evening. The judge then passed a second suo motu order, remanding the DSP to judicial custody under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act for dereliction of duty—specifically, for failing to arrest the PSO. In a move that underscored the personal nature of the action, the DSP was transported to a sub-jail in the judge's official car by court staff.

These actions prompted an urgent challenge before the Madras High Court. Justice N. Satish Kumar swiftly stayed the orders on September 9, calling the district judge's actions "unwarranted" and immediately ordering a vigilance probe to uncover the truth.

Legal Analysis: A Clear Breach of Judicial Boundaries

In his earlier order setting aside the judge's actions, Justice Kumar had deconstructed the legal fallacies upon which the suo motu orders were based, providing a crucial analysis for legal practitioners on the limits of judicial power.

On Externment under the SC/ST Act: The High Court clarified that an externment order under Section 10 cannot be passed in a vacuum. The provision requires "either a complaint or a Police report" indicating that a person is likely to commit an offence. In this case, the District Judge acted solely on the basis of an FIR, which the High Court deemed insufficient ground for such a drastic measure. The absence of a substantive police report or a formal complaint rendered the order legally untenable.

On the Power to Direct Arrest and Remand: The High Court sharply rebuked the remand of the DSP. It reiterated the established legal principle that the power of arrest is a discretion vested in the investigating agency. "A court could not direct that a particular person be arrested," the High Court noted. The judge's decision to remand the DSP for not arresting the PSO was a gross overstep of judicial authority. Furthermore, the court clarified that initiating action against a public servant for neglect of duties under the SC/ST Act is not an automatic right of the court; it requires a "definite recommendation on the administrative side or a positive finding with regard to the negligent act."

The Vigilance Report: Damning Confirmations and New Revelations

The inquiry report, compiled by Registrar (Vigilance) Jacintha Martin, not only confirmed the primary allegations but also uncovered further instances of the judge's misconduct.

The report established that Judge Chemmal: - Pressured Police: Directly threatened and coerced police officials into filing FIRs based on a closed matter to target his former PSO. - Pressured a Food Safety Officer: The inquiry revealed that the judge also pressured a Food Safety Officer to conduct a raid on the bakery owned by the PSO's father-in-law, expanding his campaign of harassment. The officer confirmed this under questioning. - Engaged in Other Misconduct: The report also cited unrelated instances of misconduct, including "coercive action against a local pharmacy that had refused to sell medicines without a valid prescription," suggesting a pattern of misusing his position.

Statements from the Superintendent of Police, the remanded DSP, and the PSO himself formed the backbone of the inquiry's findings, painting a consistent picture of a judge acting on a personal vendetta.

Implications for the Judiciary and Legal Profession

This case serves as a stark reminder of the internal accountability mechanisms within the judiciary and the critical role of High Courts in supervising the subordinate judiciary. The swift intervention by the Madras High Court and the thoroughness of the vigilance inquiry underscore the system's capacity to address misconduct when it is brought to light.

For legal professionals, the High Court's observations provide critical guidance on the procedural safeguards embedded within statutes like the SC/ST Act. The judgment reinforces the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive (police), particularly concerning the discretion to investigate and arrest. It stands as a bulwark against judicial overreach and the arbitrary exercise of power.

The matter will now proceed before the Vigilance Committee, composed of senior High Court judges, which will recommend the course of disciplinary action, potentially leading to severe consequences for the District Judge. The parallel referral to the Transfer Committee ensures that the judge is removed from his current position immediately to prevent further misuse of power and to restore public confidence in the Kancheepuram judiciary.