Madras High Court
A.Kannadasan vs D.Rajangam on 8 November, 2021
Contempt Petition No.1314 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 08.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
Contempt Petition No.1314 of 2021
A.Kannadasan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.D.Rajangam, Ex.President
2.R.Govindaraj, Ex.Vice President
3.S.Ezhilsundaram, Ex.Secretary
4.P.Dharman, Ex.Joint Secretary
5.C.Santhosh Kumar, Ex.Treasurer
6.K.Galmari, Ex.Librarian
7.M.D.Munusamy
8.M.Chinnasamy
9.V.Kalpana
10.G.Selvaraj
11.P.Velliangiri
12.S.Navinbabu
13.G.Selvam
14.G.Senthil
Office bearers & Executive Committee Members
of Bar Association, Dharmapuri .. Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Contempt Petition No.1314 of 2021
Contempt Petition filed under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 to punish the respondents herein for interfering with the
administration of justice and thereby committing contempt of court.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari
For RR 1 to 6, 8 & 14 : Mr.K.Balu
for Mr.M.R.Elavarasan
For RR 7 & 12 : Mr.V.R.Annagandhi
For R9 : Mrs.Elizabeth Ravi
For RR 10 & 11 : Mr.C.Uma Shankar
For R13 : Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.]
This contempt petition has been filed to punish the respondents for
allegedly interfering with the administration of justice, thereby committing
contempt of Court.
2. The minimum facts that are required for deciding this contempt
petition are as under :
2.1. The petitioner viz., A.Kannadasan, is a practising lawyer in
Dharmapuri District and was a member of the Dharmapuri District Bar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Contempt Petition No.1314 of 2021
Association (for brevity “the Bar Association”). In fact, in 2017, he was the
Vice President of the Bar Association.
2.2. It appears that one S.Shanmugasundaram, Advocate, had lodged a
complaint to the Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri, against one Jayanthi, a
staff member of the District Court, Dharmapuri, for taking departmental
action against her. Pursuant thereto, departmental action was initiated against
the said Jayanthi. Kannadasan took up the defence of Jayanthi in the
departmental proceedings, which did not augur well with
Shanmugasundaram. Therefore, Shanmugasundaram gave a complaint to the
Bar Association against Kannadasan, pursuant to which, the Bar Association
passed a resolution dated 30.04.2018, suspending Kannadasan from the
membership of the Bar Association for a period of one year.
2.3. Aggrieved by the said suspension, Kannadasan gave an application
to the learned Advocate General, for consent, to prosecute the office bearers
of the Bar Association for criminal contempt under Section 12 r/w 15 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for brevity “the Act”).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Contempt Petition No.1314 of 2021
2.4. The learned Advocate General conducted an enquiry and
thereafter, by order dated 17.12.2018, granted consent under Section 15 of
the Act, to initiate action for criminal contempt against Rajangam, President
of the Bar Association and 13 other office bearers.
2.5. As a sequel to the consent granted by the learned Advocate
General, the present proceedings for criminal contempt against Rajangam and
13 others was initiated and statutory notices were sent to them. On receipt of
the statutory notices, while respondents 1 to 6 and 8 to 11 appeared before
this Court in person, respondents 7 and 12 appeared via video conferencing.
Navin Babu (R12), who appeared via video conferencing submitted that on
account of his ill health, he was not able to come in person.
3. The respondents were represented by their respective counsel as
tabulated hereunder :
Respondents No.1 to 6, 8 and 14 : Mr.K.Balu
for Mr.M.R.Elavarasan
Respondents No.7 and 12 : Mr.V.R.Annagandhi
Respondent No.9 : Mrs.Elizabeth Ravi
Respondents No.10 & 11 : Mr.C.Uma Shankar
Respondent No.13 : Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Contempt Petition No.1314 of 2021
4. Heard Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel for Kannadasan.
5. Kannadasan was also present via video conferencing. Kannadasan
ventilated his grievances and stated that he does not want to precipitate the
matter further, though he was seriously hurt by the impugned resolution that
was passed by the Bar Association.
6. When we brought to the notice of the respondents that preventing an
Advocate from appearing for a litigant, would result in the litigant remaining
undefended in a Court of law and hence, it would amount to interfering with
the administration of justice thereby, attracting action for criminal contempt,
the counsel for the respondents as well the respondents conceded the position
and filed an affidavit sworn to by Mr.Rajangam, on behalf of the other
respondents as well, wherein, in paragraphs 4 and 5, an unconditional
apology has been tendered. It may be apposite to extract the relevant
passages from the said affidavit :
“4. ... ... we hereby tender unconditional apology to this
Hon'ble Court for passing resolution dated 30.04.2018 against
the petitioner and the same is hereby withdrawn.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Contempt Petition No.1314 of 2021
5. I submit that without going into the merits of the case
and without prejudice to our contentions which are available to
us, we submit that we undertake that the Advocates Association
at Dharmapuri, in future, will not pass any kind of resolution
preventing any advocates to appear as against any litigant.
This statement may kindly be recorded and thus we pray that
this Hon'ble Court to pass suitable orders and dispose of the
above contempt petition and thus render justice.”
7. We find that the apology tendered by the respondents is indeed
genuine and hence, requires acceptance by this Court. We do hope that such
incident does not recur anywhere in the State and litigants would have free
access to justice through Advocates of their choice. At this juncture, it is
pertinent to refer to the following sapient passage from the judgment of the
Queen's Bench Division in Munster Vs. Lamb (11 Q.B.D. 588) which was
quoted with approval by a Full Bench of this Court comprising Sir Arthur.
J.H. Collins, Kt., C.J., Kernan, Muttusami Ayyar, Brandt and Parker, JJ. in
Sullivan Vs. Norton (10 ILR Madras 28, reprinted in 2006(1) CTC 134) :
“If anyone needs to be free of all fear in the performance
of his arduous duty, an Advocate is that person.”
The aforesaid passage would become meaningless, if an Advocate is
prevented by the Bar from freely practising his profession before a Court of
law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Contempt Petition No.1314 of 2021
With the above observations, by accepting the affidavit dated
08.11.2021 filed by Rajangam and 13 others and consequently, dropping
further proceedings against them, we close this contempt petition.
[P.N.P., J.] [R.H., J.]
08.11.2021
gya
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Contempt Petition No.1314 of 2021
P.N.PRAKASH, J.
AND
R.HEMALATHA, J.
gya
Cont. Petn. No.1314 of 2021
08.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
