ELEPHANT G RAJENDRAN Vs. K VEERAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, in his capacity as a practising advocate and the President of the Madras High Court Practising Advocates association, invoking Section 15 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for brevity, "the Act") has preferred this contempt petition to (a) punish the first respondent for his deliberate, willful, false allegations made against a Hon'ble Judge of this Court, thereby interfering with the proceedings of this Court and for threatening the Judiciary; and (b) direct the second respondent to submit a report about the aforesaid incidence happened on 1-11-2006.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the first respondent with reference to the judicial proceedings which had taken place on 17-10-2006 before the Division Bench of this court presided over by S. J. Mukhopadhaya and F, M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, JJ, required S. J. Mukhopadhaya, J. to tender regret for the remarks made during the course of the judicial proceedings, failing which, threatened to lead an agitation on 1 -11 -2006 before the high Court of Madras, and also made a written representation to that effect to the hon'ble Chief Justice and the Hon'ble judges concerned. Pursuant to the said representation, it is stated, the first respondent has also led an agitation on 1-11-2006 at nsc Bose Road, Chennai. A. It is stated that such conduct of the first respondent, the contemptuous remarks and the demand for regret from the learned judge concerned with a threat to lead an agitation on 1-11-2006, would amount to contempt of Court as the same is nothing but a serious threat to the Independence of the Judiciary and, therefore, amounts to a contempt of Court. Hence, the above contempt petition.

(3.) WHEN the above contempt petition was filed, the Registry took an objection as to the very maintainability of the above contempt petition, but the same was represented stating that the said contempt petition is maintainable in view of the ratio laid down by this Court in Haji Rasheed mohammed v. D. Ramanujam, AIR 1986 mad 119. Thereafter, the Registry numbered the contempt petition and the same was posted before us today (30-11 -2006 ).