Madras HC asks senior police officers to explain failure to act on complaint about attack on former judge

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently took a serious view of a report indicating that the State police has failed to act on a complaint relating to the intimidation and verbal abuse of a retired Madras High Court judge [Anbazhagan Vs Jeyachandran].

Abuses were allegedly hurled at the retired judge while he was performing his duties as a Court-appointed administrator to the Pachaiyappa's trust. Whereas a complaint was filed about the incident, the police had not taken any concrete steps to investigate it.

A Division Bench of Justices G Jayachandran and Kumaresh Babu has ordered the Tamil Nadu Director General of Police (DGP), the Chennai Commissioner of Police, and the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kilpauk, to show cause as to why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against them for the lapse.

The Bench held that the continued police inaction on the complaint about the attack on the retired judge, namely Justice V Parthiban, amounted to a direct attack on the judiciary, since a court-appointed administrator acts on behalf of the Court.

"Unfortunately, even after the matter is brought to the notice of the jurisdictional Police, no action so far, has been taken and we are of the view that the abuse of the unruly elements and inaction by the Police is a direct attack on the Judiciary, as the Administrator appointed by this Court acts on behalf of it," it said.

The Court was hearing a review application in a long-running litigation concerning the administration of Pachaiyappa’s Trust when it took note of a report dated January 2, 2026, filed by the court-appointed administrator, retired Justice Parthiban.

The report detailed an incident that allegedly occurred on December 23, 2025, inside the premises of a college run by the Trust. According to the report, certain unruly elements barged into the campus, misbehaved with the administrator and hurled foul language and abuse at him.

A complaint was lodged with the jurisdictional police, and a written representation was also submitted by the Secretary of Pachaiyappa’s Trust to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kilpauk. The Court recorded that no action had been taken on the complaint.

“This Court finds the contents of the report very disturbing,” the Bench said, noting that the incident was directly aimed at a former Judge of the Court functioning as its administrator.

The Bench recalled that the former judge had been appointed as administrator by an order dated December 19, 2023, after the Court found serious mismanagement in the affairs of Pachaiyappa’s Trust. Since then, he has been administering the Trust under the supervision of the High Court.

The judges emphasised that any intimidation or obstruction faced by a court-appointed administrator cannot be treated as a private dispute.

“When the Administrator acts on behalf of this Court, any interference with his functioning strikes at the authority of the Court itself,” the Bench said.

Before proceeding further, the Court directed the DGP, the Chennai Police Commissioner and the ACP, Kilpauk to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for their inaction on the complaint enclosed with the administrator’s report.

The police officers have been directed to appear in person or through counsel on January 30, 2026, and to file a report explaining the inaction.

The Registry was directed to serve a copy of the order along with the administrator’s report on the office of the State's Advocate General and the Public Prosecutor.

Pachaiyappa’s Trust is one of Tamil Nadu’s oldest and most prominent public charitable trusts, founded in the early 18th century from the bequest of philanthropist Pachaiyappa Mudaliar.

The Trust administers a large network of educational institutions, including Pachaiyappa’s College, C Kandaswami Naidu College, Chellammal Women’s College, and several schools and hostels across Chennai and other parts of the State.

Over the past decade, the Trust has been embroiled in prolonged litigation over its governance, alleged mismanagement, illegal appointments, lease transactions relating to Trust properties, and failure to conduct elections to its Board in accordance with the governing scheme.

[Read Order]