AG notice in contempt petition against MLA Tamilselvan for scurrilous attack on Madras HC judges

Advocate General for Tamil Nadu Vijay Narayan has sent a show cause notice to disqualified MLA Thanga Tamilselvan in a contempt petition moved against him for his scurrilous attack on judges of the Madras High Court..As per the scheme of Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the consent of the Advocate General is required to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of court. After issuing notice to the alleged contemnor (in this case, Tamilselvan), the AG is required to hear both sides before deciding to accord his consent or deny permission for initiating contempt proceedings before the Court..Tamilselvan is one of the 18 disqualified AIADMK MLAs whose fate hangs in the balance, awaiting the verdict to be pronounced by Justice M Sathyanarayanan, the third judge called on to decide on the validity of the disqualification..Justice Sathyanarayanan was appointed by the Supreme Court on Monday to decide the case after a Bench of Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M Sundar were unable to reach a consensus..Whereas Chief Justice Indira Banerjee found no scope for interfering with the speaker’s decision to disqualify the MLAs, Justice M Sundar concluded that the disqualification was liable to be set aside..Lamenting the unfavourable ruling rendered by Chief Justice Banerjee, Tamilselvan is said to have made certain adverse remarks against the judiciary through media channels..The petition filed by Advocate V Srimathi makes reference to two interviews given by Tamilsevan to Thanthi TV on June 23 and 24. As per the petition, the derogatory statements made by Tamilselvan include (loosely translated) that “he has lost confidence in the judiciary” and further that, “it’s not a judgment that was given but was purchased.”.The petitioner goes on to point out that Tamilselvan has even accused the Chief Justice and other judges of the Madras High Court of having conspired with the government. As stated in the petition,.“‘He has accused the Chief Justice of the High Court and the other judges have conspired with the State and the Central government and are pawns in the hands of both the government and delivery of the judgement in the case was deliberately delayed in order to favour certain individuals. .He has also imputed in his interview that the State government was aware of the order much prior to the date on which it was passed. In the later interview he has questioned the integrity and the independence of the judiciary of this Honourable Court and has made a scurrilous attack on the Chief Justice of the Madras High court. [sic]”.Before the Supreme Court appointed Justice Sathyanarayanan as the tie-breaker judge, Chief Justice Banerjee had left it to Justice HG Ramesh (the seniormost judge after her) to appoint a third judge to decide the case..Justice Ramesh in turn tasked Justice S Vimala with hearing the matter. As per Advocate Srimathi’s observations, even Justice Vimala was not spared by Tamilselvan in his diatribe..“He has even gone on to cast aspersions on the third judge and has said that she would deliver a judgment as desired by the State and the Central government.”.Tamilselvan also allegedly stated that he expects that the third judge’s verdict will be delayed to favour the government..“He has also gone on to state in the interview given on 23-06-2018, that the court would not deliver its judgments in the next 3 and a half years and is going to deliberately take its own time to favour the Central and State Governments. [sic]”.The petition goes on to argue that Tamilselvan is not fazed by the prospect of having contempt proceedings initiated against him for these comments..“While the interviewer points to the fact that High Lordship Mr Kirubakaran has stated that it is a matter of deep regret that such baseless allegations are made, he simply brushed it aside saying, ‘8 crores of Tamil people have the same opinion.’.…When the interview points the statement of the respondent would attract action under Contempt of Court Act he openly challenges the judiciary to initiate such an action. This manner of open scandalous allegations is an interference, obstruction to the administration of justice and has been made deliberately and wilfully and amounts to criminal contempt.[sic]”.Terming these statements as being tantamount to criminal contempt of court, Advocate Srimathi has urged that Tamilselvan be punished for the same..This petition comes roughly a week after Justice N Kirubakaran expressed his disapproval for those firing from the judiciary’s shoulders in open court..This censure was also made in light of such critical comments being made against Chief Justice Banerjee, following the split verdict in the MLA disqualification case. The issue was later raised by another Advocate, AP Suryaprakasam before Justice Kirubakaran, who agreed to refer the matter to the Chief Justice for further consideration..The Supreme Court had also taken note of such comments this week. Even as it appointed Justice Sathyanarayanan to render the final verdict, it insisted that the parties withdraw any and all allegations made against the Madras High Court judges. Accordingly, the order passed by the Apex Court also states,.“We make it clear that this casts no aspersion on the judge who had been appointed to hear the matter merely because we have appointed another judge of the High Court of Madras.”.Feature image taken from here.