PETER RAMESH KUMAR ADVOCATE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONSEQUENT to certain untoward incidents having taken place on 04.09.2013, one of us (C.T.SELVAM, J.) recorded a memorandum of proceedings which reads as follows:

(2.) ON instructions, the Registry has placed the matter before the Court in Suo Motu Contempt Petition (MD) No.965 of 2013 on 11.09.2013. A further order to the following effect was made "Notice to contemnor Mr.Peter Ramesh Kumar returnable on 25.09.2013. Notice may be effected both at his Chamber address as also his residential address. Considering the seriousness of the matter and the institutional importance, the Registry is directed to place the matter before My Lord the Acting Chief Justice for hearing of the matter by a large bench, of which I may be a part." It needs mention that as against the Judges impression that the matter was to be placed and heard by a 'Large Bench', the Registry's note to the Honourable Chief Justice had read 'Larger Bench'. Honourable Chief Justice passed an administrative order to the following effect.

(3.) ON 28.10.2013 Mr.A.K.Ramasamy, Advocate made submissions of reconciliatory overtures and forwarded an affidavit of the contemnor. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad's submissions on the other hand were such as would give us no option but to punish the contemnor. Again missing the point, a learned member of the Bar raised the question of what this Court had done regards the 19.02.2009 incidents i.e., incidents relating to violent acts of the police force. A few Advocates also would complain of some of the Judges not lending a favourable ear to submissions made in Tamil. Now, to turn to the affidavit filed by the contemnor. The affidavit informs of the contemnor having great respect for courts, of his having conducted himself over 20 years in a most dignified manner and that he never intended to scandalise or lower the dignity of the Court or in any manner interfere with any judicial proceedings or the administration of justice. He states that any contrary impression created is unintended and he sincerely regrets the same. He informs the nobility of the cause pursued and of members of the Bar and general public having been agitated by the affront to the Tamil language perceived as a result of certain proceedings in this Court resulting in Advocates Association in the State resolving to boycott courts on 10.09.2013. The affidavit goes to inform that 'hundreds of Advocates participated in the boycott of Courts. As always people were very emotional as language has been a very emotive issue for Tamils for centuries. Sentiments about the Tamil language were running high in the Court campus. It was in the course of this agitation that it was decided that the Advocates would go to each court and persuade advocates who were attending courts to support the Tamil cause. It was in this context that I along with hundreds of other Advocates entered the court hall of Hon'ble Mr.Justice C.T.Selvam. There were a handful of Advocates attending courts. The atmosphere was already surcharged as Advocates attending courts were seen to be betrayers of the Tamil cause. I realised that matters would go out of control if the Advocates continued to argue matters when the majority was agitating for a public cause. It was under these circumstances, in order to diffuse the situation I requested Mr.Thangapandiyan, Advocate to leave the Court. A few lawyers surrounded him to protect him from the agitated lawyers to prevent untoward incidents. Members of the Bar were solidly behind the Tamil cause. When I led Mr.Thangapandiyan out of the court hall I did not mean the slightest disrespect to the learned Judge or the judiciary and if I have given such an impression I express my deepest regret and apologise for the same.'