Back
Litigant Branded Guilty: Madras HC Slams 'Genocide' Rants Against Judges
In a strongly worded judgment, a Division Bench of the
comprising
Justices P. Velmurugan
and
M. Jothiraman
declared Chennai resident
T. Ashok Surana
guilty of criminal contempt for his repeated, explosive accusations that a High Court judge committed
"genocide and crime against humanity on a scale unknown to mankind."
The court, while holding him accountable, extended one final lifeline: file an unconditional apology by
, or face up to a month's simple imprisonment.
This contempt case, initiated in , underscores the judiciary's firm stance against litigants who weaponize outrageous claims to derail proceedings.
From Writ Dismissal to Contempt Storm
The saga began with Surana's writ petition, W.P. No. 24580 of 2017 , dismissed on , by a Bench including Justice P.N. Prakash . Appearing in person, Surana refused to argue, alleging the judge had perpetrated unprecedented atrocities and demanding recusal. The order noted this was no isolated incident—Surana had successfully intimidated over 20 judges into recusing from his cases, a tactic the court labeled "pernicious."
The Chief Justice ordered contempt proceedings, leading to Contempt Petition No. 391 of . Multiple Benches reviewed the matter:
- : Charges framed under .
- : Further charges for repeating allegations before the Bench.
Despite warnings, Surana doubled down in his reply, demanding the judges apologize to him , pay compensation, and recuse from his future cases.
Defiance Meets Judicial Resolve
Surana, representing himself throughout, justified his outbursts by reiterating claims of judicial misconduct and accusing benches of bias. His reply statement brazenly declared the Division Bench "stripped of your powers" until exonerated, framing contempt as a personal vendetta.
The court, however, saw unrepentant obstruction. As reported in local media like The Times of India , Surana's persistence even after charges was "wholly inappropriate," and prejudicing proceedings. No remorse—just escalation.
Decoding Contempt: Scandalizing the Sanctum
The Bench meticulously traced Surana's pattern: inflammatory oral statements in 2019, repetition in 2021 and 2025 hearings, and defiant filings. This violated (lowering court authority via scandalous imputations) and (obstructing justice). No precedents were directly cited, but the judgment invoked the core principle of (no one judges their own cause), ensuring impartial Benches.
The court distinguished permissible criticism from contempt: Surana's rhetoric wasn't critique—it was designed to bully judges into submission, undermining public faith in the judiciary.
Key Observations
"He harangued that he will not make his submissions before this Bench, because, one of us (P.N.Prakash, J.) has committed genocide and crime against humanity on a scale unknown to mankind."(From foundational order, )
"This is not a solitary attempt... He has adopted these tactics with more than 20 Judges of this Court and has ensured that they had recused themselves from hearing his cases. It is high time that this Court puts a full stop to such pernicious techniques."(Ibid.)
"The repeated making of scandalous allegations against this Court and the learned Judges... amounts to scandalising the Court and interferes with the due course of judicial proceedings."(Judgment, para 7)
"The contemnor has not shown any inclination to withdraw such statements. On the contrary, he has reiterated these allegations in his reply statement."(Para 4)
Final Verdict: Apologize or Face the Cell
The Bench unequivocally ruled:
"This Court is therefore satisfied that the charges framed against the contemnor stand proved and that he has committed contempt of Court."
Yet, mercy tempered justice:
"While holding the contemnor guilty... this Court grants a final opportunity to... file an affidavit tendering an unconditional apology... The affidavit shall clearly express genuine regret and contain an undertaking that he shall not hereafter make any such allegations."
Non-compliance by , triggers punishment under , including one month's simple imprisonment. This ruling sends a clear message to vexatious litigants: the courtroom tolerates no theatrics that erode judicial integrity. Future cases may cite it to curb similar forum-shopping via fear.
As Chennai news outlets noted, it's a "stark warning" on balancing free speech with courtroom decorum.
