IN RE : PETER RAMESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE Vs. XYZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.) The matter was posted on 25.09.2013. The contemnor was present. Representations on his behalf were made by A.K. Ramasamy, Advocate, President of the Madurai District Bar Association and Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, with a few others chipping in. While Mr. A.K. Ramasamy's address was in the nature of a requisition against the contempt proceedings, that of Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, we regret to note was confrontationist. In the course of his address, Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, went to the extent of stating that it was not the Judge who had been beaten, it was only an Advocate. Mr. N.G.R. Prasad submitted that the power to punish for contempt was a relic of the British Raj, to be done away with. Mr. Mohan, Advocate assisting Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, submitted that the contempt proceedings was ab initio void since Rule 8 of the High Court Contempt of Rules Act stood violated. Both Mr. A.K. Ramasamy and N.G.R. Prasad further addressed us on the nobility of the Tamil cause that was sought to be espoused through boycott of proceedings. To similar effect were a few remarks of other counsel forming part of the contemnor entourage. We consciously use the word entourage. We are given to understand that a body of Advocates led by Mr. A.K. Ramasamy had travelled from Madurai towards being present whilst the contempt proceedings were on. There was a collective missing of the wood for the trees. The cause before us was the conduct of an Advocate which was found contumacious. We have no quarrel with the cause sought to be espoused by him. That simply is not the issue. The issue, pure and simple, is that recorded in the memorandum of proceedings dated 10.09.2013. Even in the trying circumstances, we thought it not proper to ignore the entreaties of Mr. A.K. Ramasamy and thus we informed him that the apology should come forth from the contemnor. On being advised by Mr. A.K. Ramasamy and others, the contemnor's initial remarks were "if it is wrong to protest the Tamil cause I have wronged". On his being further prompted by others his remarks were "the decision of the Association is my decision" and still thereafter "I will abide by the decision of the President and as the President wanted him to apologise he was apologising." Despite this we wished to refrain from punishing the contemnor and affording him a further opportunity to inform an apology of the heart, we adjourned the proceedings to 28.10.2013.