High Court Of Madras v. Pu.Venkatesan

Suo Motu Cont.P.No.1480 of 2024 M.S.RAMESH, J.

and SUNDER MOHAN, J.

(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.) On 24.04.2024, we had passed an order in this Suo motu Contempt Petition, calling upon the contemnor to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for making scandalous allegations against the sitting Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as well as three sitting Judges of this Court. The said order reads as follows: "The contemnor is facing suo motu contempt proceedings in Suo Motu Contempt Petition No.142 of 2020, pursuant to the administrative orders passed by the then portfolio judges of Thiruallur District, before whom certain messages containing scandalous allegations against a few District Judges and the Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, posted by the contemnor in his facebook account were placed. The Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice had approved the said minutes of the portfolio Judges and then the Registry had numbered the suo motu contempt case as above.

2. When Suo Motu Cont.P.No.142 of 2020 was listed before us on 04.03.2024, we directed fresh notice to the

contemnor returnable by 04.04.2024. On 04.04.2024, the contemnor was present and we directed the appearance of the contemnor on all further hearings and posted the case for hearing on 22.04.2024, for framing of charges.

3. In the meantime, the contemnor had been repeatedly sending communications through Registered Post to both of us directly and to Mr.Vijay Shankar, learned counsel for the High Court, making scandalous and frivolous allegations against us and other learned Judge of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. While we were exploring the further course of action on all those communications, on 22.04.2024, the contemnor filed a petition dated 22.04.2024 seeking permission to record the proceedings before this Court in his mobile phone. In this petition, he has made certain false and frivolous allegations. Along with the petition he had enclosed a copy of the letter dated 17.04.2024 containing eight pages purported to have been sent by him to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India making unsavoury remarks and scandalous allegations against High Court Judges in which the pictures of three sitting Judges of this Court and a picture of a sitting Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, are found. He had also given the translated version of the said letter.

4. Since, this letter containing scandalous and reckless allegations amount to contempt of Court on the

face of the Court, we asked the contemnor on 22.04.2024 as to whether he was aware of the procedure, to which he replied that he was aware of the same and that it was this Court, which was ignorant of the procedure.

5. We went through the contents of the letter dated 17.04.2024 annexed to the petition filed by the contemnor in detail and when the matter was listed today, we asked the contemnor as to whether he had written the letter containing those scandalous allegations and whether he stood by those allegations. He not only replied in the affirmative but also challenged us to take contempt action against him.

6. The contemnor who is already facing contempt proceedings before us, has committed another contempt in the face of the Court by not only making such allegations but also by raising his voice and questioning the procedure adopted by this Court. His conduct tends to interfere in the administration of justice and therefore, amounts to criminal contempt. Hence, the Registry is directed to number this suo motu contempt petition.

7. The contemnor is hereby called upon to show cause as to why contempt action should not be taken against him for making scandalous allegations affecting the dignity and prestige of the Court, against three sitting Judges of this

Court and a sitting Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in his letter dated 17.04.2024, which is reproduced as Annexure-A of this order and the petition dated 22.04.2024, which is reproduced as Annexure-B, on or before 13.06.2024.

8. Registry is called upon to send a copy of this order to the contemnor by registered post forthwith.

Annexure - A

Annexure - B

2. In this background, the Suo Motu Contempt Petition was listed today. Even before any question is put to him, the contemnor, who is present before this Court today, volunteered and reiterated that the statements made by him against the Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as well as the Judges of this Court, which have been extracted in our earlier order dated 24.04.2024, are true. He further added that both of us sitting in this Bench, are criminals and we cannot hear this case. When we indicated to the contemnor that criminal contempt has been made out and questioned him as to why sentence cannot be imposed on him, he challenges us saying that any order can be passed against him.

3. The contemnor, namely PU.Venkatesan, is already facing a suo motu contempt proceedings in Suo Motu Contempt Petition No.142 of 2020 and pending the earlier Contempt Petition, he had made scandalous and reckless allegations, through letters dated 17.04.2024 and 22.04.2024, which were circulated to us. When the contemnor had admitted that he was the author of the letters and challenged us to take contempt proceedings against him, the present suo motu contempt was initiated. The contents of the letters dated 17.04.2024 and 22.04.2024 are self explanatory, which scandalizes this Court, prejudices and interferes

with the due course of the judicial proceeding, apart from obstructing the administration of justice. Apparently, the contemptuous act on the part of the contemnor has been committed in the face of the Court.

4. In the case of National Lawyers' Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms and Others Vs. Union of India reported in (2020) 16 SCC 687, it has been held that such contemptuous act on the fact of the Court belittles the majesty of the Court, as well as the administration of justice and hence demand that such contemptuous behaviour of this kind should be dealt with sternly.

5. In the case of Leila David Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2009) 4 SCC 578, though it was held that orders in suo motu proceedings for contempt can be passed through summary procedure, we had extended opportunities to the contemnor to render his explanation on the charges against him and also sought for his explanation with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed against him, when we had found that he was guilty of having committed criminal contempt. In spite of these opportunities, not only did he dared us to pass any order, but also addressed both of us as criminals in front of the entire community of

lawyers and litigants, apart from the Court staff members.

6. We are of the affirmed view that such a behaviour is not only contemptuous against us, but also to the entire justice delivery system. Since the contemnor has not shown any remorse, but rather was challenging us to pass any order of our choice, we hold that the letters of the contemnor dated 17.04.2024 and 22.04.2024 scandalizes, prejudices and has interfered with the due course of our judicial proceedings, apart from obstructing the administration of justice. Hence, we hold the contemnor guilty of having committed criminal contempt, as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempts of Court Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and hence, he is liable to be punished under Section 12 of the Act. Furthermore, when he was questioned with regard to the quantum of punishment to be imposed, he called upon us to pass any order against him and thus, we deem it appropriate to impose the maximum sentence contemplated under Section 12 of the Act.

7. Accordingly, the contemnor, namely PU.Venkatesan, is hereby ordered to undergo a sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six

(6) months from today, by confining him at Central Prison, Puzhal,

Chennai. We hereby order the Inspector of Police, B4, High Court Police Station, Chennai, to arrest and produce the contemnor, who is physically present before us, before the Jail authorities of Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, forthwith.

8. This Suo Motu Contempt Petition stands closed accordingly. [M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 13.06.2024 kas/hvk

M.S.RAMESH, J.

and SUNDER MOHAN, J.

kas/hvk 13.06.2024