Madras High Court sentences PIL petitioner to four weeks' imprisonment for contempt, misleading court

The Madras High Court on Monday sentenced a litigant to four weeks' imprisonment under the Contempt of Courts Act for misleading the Court. [Sivakumar v A Radhakrishnan]..The Bench of Justices PN Prakash and AA Nakkiran found the respondent guilty of four charges arising out of several acts of criminal contempt and opined that no sympathy could be shown to him.“...the respondent appears to be an interloper who has been using the judicial process for blackmailing and causing annoyance to ordinary people in the guise of being a Good Samaritan.”.The respondent was in the habit of claiming himself to be the trustee of some temples, based on which he used to represent to various departments making allegations of encroachment. He followed these up with public interest litigation (PIL) petitions in the High Court.The PILs were only against government officials without the inclusion of the alleged encroachers as parties. The respondent then approached authorities and made it appear as thought the High Court was monitoring the matters.In fact, the intelligence gathered by the police showed that he collected money from old people on the basis of false promises of getting them pension..Finding the respondent guilty of filing petitions giving false addresses, the Court observed that when a person files an affidavit, especially in a public interest litigation, they are required to disclose their true details.“Giving an address in the affidavit knowing full well that it is not the correct one, per se, amounts to criminal contempt, because, the respondent does not want to be reached by the Court and wants to remain incognito.”.Further, the Court found the respondent guilty of filing PILs without being a trustee of a temple and asking for certain directions.In his affidavits filed before the Court, the respondent stated that he was a trustee, given that he was a Kattalaidharar (person who sponsors poojas or free distribution of food) of the temple. However, the Court stated that a trustee is in a higher position than a mere Kattalaidharar because the trustee holds an office whereas, a Kattalaidharar is merely a donor.“Therefore, the respondent has misled this Court by calling himself as a Trustee when actually he was not one. Hence, he is found guilty of the second charge.”Further, the Court found that the acts of giving false information would definitely interfere with the administration of justice and fall within the expression “the administration of justice in any other manner” under the Contempt of Courts Act..With this, the respondent was found guilty and sentenced to four weeks of imprisonment and a fine of ₹2000. The Court, however, suspended the sentence for eight weeks, given that he planned to challenge the High Court's decision before the Supreme Court.Advocate EJ Ayyappan appeared for the petitioner while the respondent was represented by Advocate R Marudhachalamurthy..[Read Order]