Repeatedly Making Scandalous Allegations Interferes With Course Of Judicial Proceedings: Madras High Court Holds Man In Contempt For Saying Judge Committed Genocide

The High Court held that repeated making of scandalous allegations against the Court and the Judges, coupled with the use of intemperate and unwarranted expressions in the course of judicial proceedings, amounts to scandalising the Court.

The High Court was considering a Suo Motu Contempt Petition initiated against the contemnor.

The Division Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice M. Jothiraman stated, “The repeated making of scandalous allegations against this Court and the learned Judges, coupled with the use of intemperate and unwarranted expressions in the course of judicial proceedings, amounts to scandalising the Court and interferes with the due course of judicial proceedings and the administration of justice. This Court is therefore satisfied that the charges framed against the contemnor stand proved and that he has committed contempt of Court.”

“However, in order to afford one final opportunity to the contemnor to purge himself of the contempt, this Court is inclined to grant one last opportunity”, it added.

Advocate V.Vijaya Shankar represented the Appellant while the Respondent appeared in person.

Factual Background

In the earlier proceedings, the contemnor, appearing in person, had made derogatory and scandalous allegations against the Co-ordinate Bench, including imputations that the High Court had committed “genocide” and “crime against humanity". In view of the scandalous averments and the tenor of the pleadings, the Court had observed that the conduct of the contemnor warranted initiation of appropriate contempt proceedings. This order formed the very foundation for the initiation of the suo motu contempt proceedings. Taking note of the repeated allegations made by the contemnor and the manner in which he had conducted himself before this Court, the Division Bench framed charges against the contemnor under Section 2(c)(i), which is punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that despite the categorical observations and findings recorded by the Court from time to time in the earlier orders, and notwithstanding the framing of specific charges against him in the order, the contemnor continued to make similar derogatory and scandalous allegations even in the current proceedings.

The Bench also found that the Co-ordinate Bench had observed that the contemnor had adopted similar tactics with more than 20 Judges of this Court and had ensured their recusal from hearing his cases. “The relevant portions of the aforesaid orders, extracted above, establish that the contemnor has been repeatedly cautioned and that findings have been recorded regarding the impermissibility of his conduct. Despite such judicial observations and findings, the contemnor has persisted with the same allegations even before this Bench”, it added.

However, in order to afford one final opportunity to the contemnor to purge himself of the contempt, the Court granted him one last opportunity.

“Accordingly, while holding the contemnor guilty of contempt of Court, this Court grants a final opportunity to the contemnor to file an affidavit tendering an unconditional apology for the allegations and statements made by him against this Court, the learned Judges of this Court and the judicial orders passed by them”, it ordered.

The Bench made it clear that if the contemnor fails to file such an affidavit within the time granted, the Court would proceed to impose appropriate punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, including a sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one month, without further reference.

Cause Title: High Court of Madras v. T.Ashok Surana (Case No.: Suo Motu Contempt Petition No.391 of 2020)

Click here to read/download Order