HIGH COURT OF MADRAS Vs. B.SATHISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the sake of convenience, the dramatis personae in this case would be referred to by their respective names.

(2.) One Ms. R. Poornima, an officer of the cadre of District Judge, was functioning as Registrar (Vigilance) in the High Court. The Vigilance Department of the High Court works under the control of the Vigilance Committee comprising sitting Judges of the High Court under the overall supervision of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. Over the past few years, the Vigilance Committee has been taking serious action 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.

(3.) While so, Sathish Kumar, Advocate, the first respondent herein, filed W.P.No.14434 of 2020 in his name seeking a writ of quo warranto alleging that Ms.Poornima had not passed the Plus Two examination and was, therefore, not qualified to obtain a Law degree and as a sequel, lacks the qualification to be a District Judge. Not stopping there, extensive publicity to the case was given in the media even before it came up for admission in the Court. The counsel on record for Sathish Kumar in the said writ petition were one Ashok Kumar, Advocate and U. Vasudevan, Advocate.