"Too much of curiosity kills the cat": Madras HC slaps Rs 5L costs, initiates contempt against lawyer for false claims against HC Registrar

The first Bench of the Madras High Court on Monday imposed Rs 5 lakhs as costs on a lawyer for having filed a vexatious petition alleging that the Registrar (Vigilance) of the High Court is not educationally qualified to hold her post (B Sathishkumar v The Secretary to Government and ors)..Finding the allegations made to be false and in view of the adamant conduct by Advocate B Sathishkumar (petitioner) during the hearing on Monday, the Court also initiated criminal contempt proceedings against the lawyer apart from dismissing his plea. .Moreover, on observing that the petitioner has a history of filing vexatious litigation, the Court barred Sathishkumar from practising as an advocate until further orders or until he is permitted to resume practice by the Bench hearing the contempt case initiated against him. The contempt case has been fixed to be taken up on October 28 by the appropriate Bench. .Chief Justice AP Sahi and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy ruled, ."This is not a case of inadequate information, but is a clear case of false information served on a platter before this Court without any sense of responsibility through a false affidavit and wasting the precious time of the Court. The litigation is neither genuine nor bona fide and is clearly vexatious, designed for some oblique motive, or a desire to win notoriety and cheap popularity."."It is clearly actuated by malice and is neither in the interest of the institution, nor in public interest. It does not serve any purpose, much less a lawful purpose. Such cases should, therefore, be dismissed with heavy costs in order to send a message that too much of curiosity kills the cat."Madras High Court.The serious calling of licence to practice law converted into an engine of falsehood.The Court observed that that Sathishkumar had resorted to pure falsehood by filing an incorrect and false affidavit to allege that the Registrar (Vigilance) had not completed her 12th standard exam and that she obtained her course through distance mode. .This, the Court observed, appeared to have been done to gain publicity and "with a view to unsettle the mind of the public at large and to satisfy his own personal self-defined role of some sort of whistle-blow er.".The Court did not mince words in castigating the lawyer for making such allegations without due verification. The Court's order states, ."This is not only perjury, but a clear act to defile the image of the entire judicial system as if the High Court has employed a totally unqualified person. This spreading of false information by the petitioner and then converting it into a patently false affidavit is writ large on the face of the entire pleadings.".On a perusal of records available at the High Court, the Bench found they contradicted the claims made by the lawyer. The Registrar's original certificate was also examined to verify the same. .Terming Sathiskumar's petition as "an outcome of patent falsehood pleaded, which is worse than a house of cards and a castle built of sand", the Bench expressed strong disapproval over the attempt to "dislodge an important functionary of the High Court, that too even a lady officer, who has reportedly served the institution to the best of her integrity, honesty and devotedness.".Such a reckless exercise by the petitioner at a time when the judiciary and Judges are being criticized would also create an aggravated atmosphere of animosity and depravity about the officer and her career, the Court observed. It further expressed concern that,."Such a sort of allegation has not only far-reaching effects in public and official life, but in private life as well, where it is not uncommon that with the spread of such news, social media starts trolling on the basis of such falsehood. The stretch of damage which has by now been caused with the publication of the news at the instance of the petitioner not only would have created doubts, but in some corners hatred as well, that may continue for long and would also be a matter of awkward embarrassment in future for the sixth respondent to face this ordeal.".In view of the petitioner's disgraceful conduct, he was directed to pay Rs 5 lakhs as costs to the Registrar (Vigilance) within 15 days. If the same is not paid, the costs may be realised as arrears of land revenue, the Bench added. .The Court added, "A licence to practice law is a serious calling and to convert it into an engine of falsehood for an attempted vilification of a judicial officer may possibly be a calculated and conspiratorial move in the background that the sixth respondent happens to be the Registrar Vigilance of the High Court, who is also responsible for reporting deviant behaviour in the subordinate judiciary, or other matters where vigilance enquiries are set up."."Time to take a call on ethical professionalism of news reporters".The Judges commented that "a time has come to take a call on the ethical professionalism of news reporters", given that the media had also "let out a hand to the petitioner in spreading this news.".The Bench added,."This would be a matter of investigation in the criminal contempt proceedings, but we would only like to say that lack of objectivity for impartial reporting has seen a decline like in the present case and, therefore, it is high time that the question of impartial news being disseminated should be gauged and pondered over by all concerned.".High Court alive to its responsibilities, Single Judge ought not to have doubted Vigilance wing's functioning.In the course of the judgment, the Bench also referred to recent observations made by Justice SM Subramaniam, whereby he had called for increasing vigilance checks in judicial departments while commenting that the judiciary is also prone to corruption. .Judiciary also not exempt from corrupt practices: Madras HC calls for frequent surprise visits, inspection in the judicial departments.The first Bench, however, has now defended the functioning of its vigilance wing, stating, ."We ourselves are of the opinion that such doubts should not reign in the minds of the people and judicial notice can be taken of the fact that during the past one year the High Court has taken disciplinary action against judicial officers and subordinate staff extensively through its vigilant administrative machinery in at least 39 disciplinary matters, for which the data has been roughly provided for by the Registry. This is a sufficient indicator of the High Court being alive to its responsibilities, but since the aforesaid observation was made in a judicial pronouncement, even though totally unconnected with the case in question, we find it necessary to mention this.".The Court added, "The learned Single Judge, therefore, should not have doubted the functioning of the Vigilance Wing without ascertaining any facts on that count, but we find that in the background of this litigation, it was necessary to point out that the High Court to the best of its capacity and ability has been responding to every such challenging situation on the administrative side."."A general perception on any impulse may cause a doubt, but it appears to be far from reality."Madras High Court.Read the Judgment: