Not Court's job to use a sledgehammer: Madras HC issues note of caution but closes Contempt proceedings against Actor Suriya

The First Bench of the Madras High Court on Friday drew the curtains on criminal contempt proceedings sought to be initiated against Actor Suriya for criticising the conduct of NEET at a time when judges are hearing matters through video conferencing amid the pandemic. .Actor Suriya's remarks on holding NEET amid pandemic amounts to criminal contempt: Justice SM Subramaniam writes to Madras HC Chief Justice.The Court remarked that the comments made by Suriya were unnecessary and unwarranted, given how courts have continued to function despite the pandemic and since courts in Tamil Nadu had no occasion to adjudicate on the conduct of NEET this year. .All the same, the Bench opined that it does not want to take the issue further, while quoting Lord Denning, among others. As quoted in the order passed by the Bench of Chief Justice AP Sahi and Justice Senthil Ramamoorthy,."Exposed as we are to the winds of criticism, nothing which is said by this person or that, nothing which is written by this pen or that, will deter us from doing what the occasion requires, provided that it is pertinent to the matter in hand. Silence is not an option when things are ill done.... The article contains an error, no doubt, but errors do not make it a contempt of court."Madras HC, quoting Lord Denning.As further stated in the order,."... we find that the utterances by the cine actor may have been absolutely unnecessary or even unwarranted, for being ignorant of the manner in which the entire judiciary of this State has served the interest of its citizens during this pandemic, and any such statement could have been avoided in a much more sober way, instead of an accusing tone, which though trivial in nature has raised a storm in a teacup. A person in public life enjoys a position because of the responsibility with which he conducts himself and not by making other human activities look small for perceptibly no valid reason, but we would not say anything further, as we find that the NEET Examinations and the dispute around it was not even a subject matter of the Courts in the State of Tamil Nadu. A self-righteous person should himself be humble enough to acknowledge the contribution of others.".The Court also deliberated in detail on how words may be construed depending on intent, language and tone. The order, authored by Chief Justice AP Sahi remarks, "A language which may, might be perfectly proper if uttered in a temperate manner, be grossly improper if uttered in a different manner. What may appear to be disrespectful may also be short of insult, and may be touching the borders of criticism. A reasonable precaution has to be taken in matters of public affairs, particularly Courts, Judges and their functioning, where fair and temperate criticism should not be contemptuous.".6 former Judges urge Madras HC Chief Justice not to initiate contempt against Suriya over NEET remarks; TNAA condemns Suriya's statement.Another aspect on which the Court mused on today was the need to be responsible while making statements. In this regard, the order states,"Reliability of sources of information should always be observed when people occupying a public space speak on issues that deserve to be based on ground realities, or else any statement bereft of foundational facts may be fraught with a danger of spreading prejudices and adding to the ignorance of the public at large. Speculations and narratives with embellishments may be a form of advertisement, but it should not be an off the cuff depiction. This unnecessarily results in relentless interrogation on platforms with accusations of over-sensitiveness, even though an opinion expressed genuinely might have a grain of truth in it."."It is good to form opinions and dissents to evolve a purer thought, but trivials should not be allowed to spread as if they were wild fire."Madras High Court.The Court added a word of caution for those speaking on institutions such as the Judiciary, while also emphasising that it is not on the Court's to drive home this message with a sledgehammer.."A statement made in exuberance may bring about a trial and, therefore, in view of the peculiar status on which this institution is pedestalled under the Constitution, it would be prudent on the part of the individuals to carefully frame their minds and express themselves that may not cross the borders of any fair and just criticism."."On the other hand, it is not the job of a constitutional Court to use a sledgehammer for avoidance of something which can be perceived to be not capable of even being propped up as a contempt, much less debated to the level of a criminal contempt."Madras High Court.The Court proceeded to express its agreement with the stance taken by Advocate General Vijay Narayan who had earlier declined to grant consent for carrying forward the contempt proceedings. ."This matter, therefore, in our judicious discretion does not deserve to be pursued further and we entirely agree with the opinion expressed by the learned Advocate General."Madras High Court.Notably, the Court also detailed how cases have been taken up and disposed of by the courts in the State, including the High Court and the lower courts. .A total of 43,233 cases were disposed of by the Madras High Court between March 26 and September 15, of which 25, 181 were by the Principal Seat and 17,052 by Madurai, the order states..The Bench emphasised that it is only dislosing such data to point out "that the Judiciary was not sitting idle and was itself on trial during this pandemic.""...the Judges of the High Court, of the Subordinate Judiciary, the entire staff and all stakeholders have served to the best of the capacity of the institution. This is not self- praise, but to state our humble performance of duty", the Court said. .It added, "We have said this, as any anxiety or sensitivity by way of a public perception should be depicted only after verifying and ascertaining facts or else a distorted version may emerge, because if you put wrong questions, you are bound to get wrong answers. This is only to inform those within the judicial fraternity, as well as the citizenry at large, that judicial governance under the Constitution has performed no less, may be not to the expectations of those who may have a different opinion about the method of dispensation of justice during these trying times.".Read the Order: