Recently, the Madras High Court held a litigant guilty of criminal contempt for repeatedly making scandalous and derogatory allegations against the Court and its Judges, observing that such conduct directly undermines the administration of justice. Granting one final opportunity before sentencing, the Court sent a stern message that intimidation, vilification, and defiance cannot be allowed to pass as advocacy.
Brief Facts:
The contempt proceedings stemmed from a writ petition filed by the contemnor as a party-in-person, which came to be dismissed in November 2019. While rejecting the writ petition, the Court took serious exception to the language and allegations used by the litigant, who accused a sitting Judge of having committed “genocide” and “crime against humanity,” and openly refused to argue his case before the Bench. The Court noted that this was not an isolated incident, recording that the contemnor had employed similar tactics against over twenty Judges to secure their recusal.
In view of the scandalous pleadings and courtroom conduct, the matter was placed before the Chief Justice, leading to initiation of suo motu criminal contempt proceedings under Sections 2(c)(i) and 2(c)(ii) read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Despite framing of charges and repeated warnings over the years, the contemnor continued to reiterate the same allegations even in the contempt proceedings.
Contentions:
The contemnor, appearing in person, did not dispute having made the statements attributed to him. Instead, he sought to justify his conduct by repeating the very same allegations against the Court and its Judges. In a confrontational stance, he went so far as to demand that the Division Bench tender an apology to him, withdraw the contempt proceedings, and recuse itself from hearing any matter involving him, asserting that the Bench had “disqualified itself” from exercising judicial power.
The position of the Court, acting suo motu, was grounded in protecting the dignity of the judicial institution. The Court relied on its earlier orders and the contemnor’s own pleadings to demonstrate a consistent pattern of behaviour aimed at scandalising the judiciary and obstructing the due course of judicial proceedings, squarely attracting criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Observations of the Court:
Analysing the contemnor’s conduct across multiple proceedings, the Court found that the repeated use of intemperate, abusive, and scandalous language against Judges and judicial orders went far beyond permissible criticism. The Court noted that even after charges were framed, the contemnor showed no remorse and continued to scandalise the institution, observing that “the repeated making of scandalous allegations against this Court and the learned Judges… interferes with the due course of judicial proceedings and the administration of justice.”
The Bench emphasised that the contemnor had been cautioned on several occasions, yet persisted with the same conduct, reflecting “continued defiance and absence of any sincere attempt to purge the contempt.” On this basis, the Court concluded that the charges of criminal contempt stood fully proved.
The decision of the Court:
Holding the contemnor guilty of criminal contempt, the High Court granted a last and final opportunity to purge the contempt by filing an affidavit of unconditional apology expressing genuine remorse and undertaking not to repeat such conduct. The Court made it clear that failure to do so would invite punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, including simple imprisonment, thereby reaffirming the principle that while courts may show restraint and mercy, sustained attacks on judicial authority will invite firm institutional response.
Case Title: High Court of Madras Vs. T.Ashok Surana,
Case No.: Suo Motu Contempt Petition No.391 of 2020
Coram: The Hon'ble. Justice P.Velmurugan, The Hon'ble. Justice M.Jothiraman,
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. V.Vijaya Shankar,
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. T.Ashok Surana
Read Judgment @Laterstlaws.com
Picture Source :
