Madras High Court holds two lawyers guilty of contempt of court for filing vexatious petition to dislodge Registrar, filing false affidavit

The Madras High Court on Friday found two lawyers guilty of contempt of court for having pursued vexatious litigation calculated to dislodge a Registrar (Vigilance) of the High Court on the strength of a patently false affidavit which had accused her of not being qualified to hold the post. (High Court of Madras v. B Sathish Kumar and ors).A Bench of Justices PN Prakash and RN Manjula had taken up the matter on a reference made by a Bench headed by then Chief Justice. .The First Bench had earlier imposed costs of Rs 5 lakh on one of the lawyers, while initiating contempt of court proceedings.."Too much of curiosity kills the cat": Madras HC slaps Rs 5L costs, initiates contempt against lawyer for false claims against HC Registrar .In the order passed last Friday, Justices Prakash and Manjula opined that they were fully satisfied that the two lawyers had "acted in tandem and hatched a devious plot to manufacture the vexatious litigation on the strength of patently false affidavit which was calculated to not only dislodge the then Registrar (Vigilance) from her post but also bring down the prestige of the High Court."."In addition, the duo had caused the petition to be widely circulated in the press, even prior to the admission of the matter before this Court and had thus brought the administration of justice into disrepute in the eyes of the public, without realizing the fact that their conduct, as officers of the Court, would amount to recklessly hurling stones at the institution, thereby bringing the administration of justice into disrepute", the Court added in its order. .The Court also expressed its displeasure over the petition being widely publicised even before it reached the Court. ."If the alleged contemnors were interested in maintaining the dignity of the institution, the least they could have done was to have given a representation to the Registrar General alleging that Ms. Poornima had not cleared Plus Two examination. This was not done. Instead, a petition seeking a writ of quo warranto was filed and immediately thereafter, a news item was made to be published by them. Here, Ms. Poornima’s reputation is not the subject matter of the contempt proceedings, but, the image of the High Court as an institution in the eye of the public", the Court said. .The Bench further expressed that being "officers of the Court", the two lawyers had an additional responsibility and duty to refrain from doing anything that would cause damage to the institution, because, it is this institution which gives them an identity in the society..Case Background.The controversy arose out of a writ petition filed in 2020 accusing the then High Court Registrar of Vigilance, Poornima of not having passed her 12 standard. A Bench of Chief Justice Sahi and Justice Sethilkumar found that this allegation was not true and dismissed the writ petition. .Instead, the lawyer who moved the plea, advocate B Sathish Kumar, found himself the recipient of contempt of court proceedings in addition to the Rs 5 lakh costs imposed by the First Bench. The counsel on record in this writ petition were two others, advocates Ashok Kumar and U Vasudevan.."An extraordinary situation arose when we found that the Sathish Kumar - Vasudevan duo was not alone in this misadventure and that there were some insiders of the judiciary who were having some grievances against Ms. Poornima. The judicial institution has to be protected not only from the onslaught of outsiders, but also from those who are attempting to destroy it from within," the Court remarked. .In the course of the contempt proceedings, Sathish Kumar alleged that he was being made a scapegoat and that he had moved the writ petition on the urging of his senior, advocate Vasudevan. It was Kumar's case that he was only a pawn in the hands of his senior, the Court recorded. Kumar also filed an affidavit expressing his unconditional apologies and appealing for mercy from the Court. .Vasudevan, on the other hand, denied any involvement in filing the writ petition. The Court, however, remained unconvinced. In this regard, the Bench also noted that Vasudevan had paid the costs imposed earlier on Kumar by the First Bench. ."If Vasudevan has had no role in the filing of the writ petition, why should he give by cash, a huge sum of Rs.5 lakh to Sathish Kumar?", the Court asked. .The Court also pointed out that Registrar Poornima may have been targeted owing to the serious action being taken over the past few years against several judicial officers and staff of doubtful integrity and character."As Registrar (Vigilance), the unenviable task of executing the directions of the Vigilance Committee fell upon Ms. Poornima. So, she was presumably a target of displeasure", the Bench observed. .How the contemnors "conveniently palmed off the grease of their litigative excesses on a dead man".Interestingly, both Kumar and Vasudevan also referred to the name of a retired district judge as one of the "handlers in the judiciary who had engineered this devious plot.".To the surprise of the Court, however, the district judge so named was found to have already passed away twenty days before he was named for the first time in the course of contempt hearings. ."... the duo found themselves in a very sticky wicket. They appear to have conveniently palmed off the grease of their litigative excesses on a dead man, who, obviously, could offer no counter to their allegations from the after-life," the Court observed.. High Court verdict.The Court concluded that both advocates Sathish Kumar and Vasudevan were guilty of contempt of Court on charges earlier framed under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971and Section 2(c)(i) read with Section 12(1)..Kumar was directed to pay a Rs 2,000 fine for each charge (Rs 6,000. for three charges) defaulting which he would have to undergo a week's simple imprisonment for each charge. .On the payment of the fine, Kumar was also permitted to resume his High Court practice..The sentence was granted after considering that Kumar hailed from a poor family, in view of his having mellowed down and tendered a genuine, unconditional apology and also given that he had already been slapped with Rs 5 lakh as costs. .In Vasudevan's case, the Court remarked that he had remained "defiant" all along and contended that he has had no hand in the matter, although the Court found that both he and Sathish Kumar had clearly acted in tandem "to recklessly engineer a false litigation with the sole object of damaging the judiciary.".While Vasudevan had also apologised in a February 2021 affidavit, in a subsequent affidavit filed in June after charges were framed, the Court found that there was "absolutely no whisper of any apology.""Even in the course of the arguments, there was no show of any remorse or penitence. As a senior, both in age as well in practice, he should have been a role model for Sathish Kumar and should have endeavoured to mold him. He should have inculcated ethics and morality in Sathish Kumar, instead of encouraging and taking him as a partner in this misadventure," the Court said. .Therefore, in addition to a fine of Rs 2,000 for each charge (Rs 6,000 for three charges), Vasudevan was also sentenced to undergo a month of simple imprisonment for each of the three charges framed against him. .Further, Vasudevan was barred from practicing before the High Court for a period of one year. .On these terms, the contempt case was disposed of. .[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.