P.N. PRAKASH, J.

The instant suo motu criminal contempt proceedings has been initiated against Mr.R. Krishnamurthy, the respondent herein, pursuant to an order dated 18.06.2021 passed by M. Dhandapani, J. in Crl.O.P. No.10837 of 2021 vide ROC No.2761/2021/OS.

2 The facts in brief leading to the initiation of the present suo motu criminal contempt proceedings are as under:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Suo Motu Crl. Cont.Petn. No.766 of 2021 2.2 In connection with this unsavory incident, a case in G-7 Chetpet Police Station Crime No.192 of 2021 was registered against Tanuja Rajan and Preeti Rajan by the police. Apprehending arrest, the mother-daughter duo filed a petition for anticipatory bail in the Court of Session, Chennai, which was dismissed. Thereafter, they filed Crl.O.P.No.10387 of 2021 in the High Court, seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The said anticipatory bail petition was heard via video conferencing by Justice M. Dhandapani on 15.06.2021.

2.3 While so, the respondent, who claims himself to be an Advocate of the Supreme Court, but, was not the counsel on record for the accused in the anticipatory bail petition, was present in the hearing of the case by video conferencing.

2.4 During the hearing on 15.06.2021, the learned Judge, observing that the issue involved in the said petition had a larger ramification with regard to the conduct of the members of the legal fraternity, vis-a-vis, the officials of the Government, and that the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, being the regulatory authority for the legal profession and also the authority concerned for 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Suo Motu Crl. Cont.Petn. No.766 of 2021 taking action against its errant members, impleaded them as a party respondent in the criminal original petition. The Bar Council was directed to file a status report, stating the mechanism that is in place for taking action against the members of the legal fraternity and also the action that has been taken against such of those advocates, who have misbehaved in public places with the officials on duty. Further, the learned Judge appears to have ventilated certain grievances orally at the deteriorating standards of the legal profession and thereafter, adjourned the case to 17.06.2021, for further hearing.

2.5 After the hearing on 15.06.2021 was over, the respondent has recorded his own monologue on his mobile phone, attacking the learned Judge personally, and has circulated the same widely on WhatsApp.

2.6 On this audio recording, the learned Judge has, by order dated 18.06.2021, directed initiation of suo motu proceedings for criminal contempt against the respondent, under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 . 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Suo Motu Crl. Cont.Petn. No.766 of 2021 2.7 The Hon'ble Chief Justice directed the matter to be placed before the Bench concerned. Cognizance was taken, notice was issued to the respondent and the respondent appeared in person on 01.09.2021.

3 The free English translation of the speech of the respondent, imputing motives against the learned Judge, which made the latter direct the Registry to initiate suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against the respondent, is as under:

4 A copy of the above translation was furnished to the respondent along with the charges framed against him on 30.09.2021, which are as under:

When questioned, the respondent pleaded “not guilty”.

5 In response to the aforesaid charges, the respondent filed a reply affidavit dated 05.10.2021, wherein, at paragraphs 6 to 8, he has stated as under:

6 A complete reading of the respondent’s reply affidavit shows that he has alleged that the learned Judge had condemned the entire legal fraternity during the hearing of the anticipatory bail application in Crl.O.P.No.10387 of 2021 and since he felt hurt, he recorded the audio speech and circulated it on 15.06.2021. Thus, he has not denied the fact that he had recorded the aforesaid speech in Tamil and circulated it in the WhatsApp, thereby placing it in the public domain. 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Suo Motu Crl. Cont.Petn. No.766 of 2021 7 The question for consideration in this contempt petition is, in the light of the proviso and explanation to Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, should the respondent be discharged from this case, to determine which, it is imperative for us to discuss the background in which he had made the imputations in the impugned speech.

8 First and foremost, the respondent claims himself to be an advocate enrolled in the Bar Council of Kerala and a Supreme Court practitioner. In his reply affidavit dated 05.10.2021, he has affixed his seal which reads as under:

9 At this juncture, we would like to pause for a moment and say a few words on the conduct of Tanuja Rajan, Advocate and her daughter Preeti Rajan, a Law student, (the petitioners in the criminal original petition before the learned 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Suo Motu Crl. Cont.Petn. No.766 of 2021 Judge) towards the police, which is also available in the public domain. The way Tanuja Rajan was abusing the lady police officer and not permitting her to discharge her duty, would make any right-thinking citizen shudder and hang his head in shame.

10 What did the police do? The police stopped the car of Preeti Rajan and asked her whether she has the necessary mandatory COVID-19 permit for moving around the town which was required during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Had Preeti Rajan behaved politely, the police might have even let her off. Instead, she called her mother Tanuja Rajan over mobile phone and the latter came to the place and behaved in a manner unbecoming of an advocate. Those video clippings became viral not only in social media, but were also telecast in various TV channels. Therefore, when the anticipatory bail application of Tanuja Rajan and Preeti Rajan came up for hearing before the learned Judge, out of sheer frustration, the learned Judge would have given vent to his feelings. All Judges, from a Magistrate to Judges of the Supreme Court, including us, have come from the Bar and have not descended from the heavens nor have been imported from other countries. We are, therefore, grateful to the institution called the Bar, which has catapulted us to various judicial offices. We 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Suo Motu Crl. Cont.Petn. No.766 of 2021 look upon the Bar as an independent and fearless body that would protect the judiciary when the judiciary is vilified and targeted by others. However, when we come across members of the Bar getting involved in unsavoury incidents, our paternal instinct is bound to make us exhibit our anguish and concern publicly. Statistics show that 263 criminal cases have been registered against advocates in the State between January and April, 2021. It is also unfortunate that Bar leaders tend to play God by readily going to the rescue of errant advocates, who involve themselves in breaking the institution from inside. We genuinely fear that if the Bar, which is the source for the Bench, becomes criminalized and corrupt, the Bench will get only bad apples. That will be the last nail in the coffin of democracy. There is no point in ruing thereafter that the judiciary has collapsed.

11 If the respondent was really aggrieved by the remarks allegedly made by the learned Judge, as a Supreme Court advocate having experience of more than a decade, he could have very well recorded his protest in a dignified manner during the course of the hearing itself or sought an appointment with the learned Judge, met him in his chambers and recorded his protest. He did neither. Instead, he recorded his own speech making imputations against the learned Judge and asking him to recuse from the case. He has even threatened the Judge that he would go to 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Suo Motu Crl. Cont.Petn. No.766 of 2021 the Supreme Court and file a Special Leave Petition seeking to expunge the remarks. Not stopping with that, he has directly accused the learned Judge of bias using the words which are extracted below at the cost of repetition:

12 As an Advocate of the Supreme Court, the respondent knows full well that the learned Judge cannot retaliate nor defend himself by recording and circulating his audio message as a counter to the audio message circulated by the respondent. Needless to state, the impugned audio message of the respondent was so widely circulated in the social media that it reached the public and caused great embarrassment to the learned Judge. If an advocate of the Supreme Court behaves in such an unbecoming way with a High Court Judge and if the same is viewed leniently and sympathetically and as a sequel, condoned, he would be emboldened to do the same even to a Supreme Court Judge. If the respondent had not been an advocate, then, we could be sympathetic to some extent. We usually extend the longest of our olive branches to disgruntled litigants who attack Judges off and on. However, if we show leniency to the respondent, it is tantamount to showing 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Suo Motu Crl. Cont.Petn. No.766 of 2021 misplaced sympathy. To be noted, advocates may be proximate to Judges, but, that does not lead to the inference that they are proximate to justice. If we condone the act of the respondent, a wrong message will go to the public that the Judges can be attacked by obtaining a law degree. They would be emboldened to obtain a law degree, which, we are told, is freely given in some States by law colleges functioning in garages and terraces and start maligning the institution in the social media like the respondent.

13 Now, coming to the first charge which relates to scandalizing the Court, the statement of the respondent is “My Lord, I had sent a petition to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of Madras High Court, His Lorship Mr. Justice Sanjib Banerjee, the petition filed by Louisal Ramesh, requesting to refer this case to some other honourable portfolio; honest, honourable portfolio judge”. What does this imputation imply? It implies that the learned Judge is not an honest and honourable Judge. Will this not amount to scandalizing the Court? Our answer to this question is an emphatic “Yes”. The implication is that the learned Judge has not dealt with the case impartially, which, in our considered opinion, has the tendency to scandalize the Court. We are fortified in holding so in the light of the 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Suo Motu Crl. Cont.Petn. No.766 of 2021 following passage from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Padmahasini vs. C.R. Srinivas1 :

(emphasis supplied) Therefore, we hold the respondent guilty of the first charge.

14 As regards the second charge qua interfering with the due course of the judicial proceedings in the anticipatory bail petition in Crl.O.P. No.10387 of 2021, we find that the respondent had not interfered with, during the course of the judicial proceedings, but had recorded the impugned audio message only after the hearing and had the same circulated via WhatsApp. Therefore, he cannot be convicted of the second charge and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said charge.

15 As regards the third charge which relates to interference with administration of justice, the very recording of the impugned audio message and placing it in the public domain by circulating it in the WhatsApp during the 1 (1999) 8 SCC 711 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Suo Motu Crl. Cont.Petn. No.766 of 2021 pendency of the anticipatory bail application, would undoubtedly fall within the contours of the third charge. That apart, the statement of the respondent “Therefore, My Lord, as far as this case is concerned, you are biased. It is clearly revealed, that Your Lordship Mr.Justice M.Dhandapani is biased, unilateral and is in favour of the police department. Therefore you shall recuse yourself from this case, My Lord.” would also squarely fall within the ambit of the third charge. Further, the respondent has given a veiled threat to the learned Judge by saying “If it is observed in the order, I need to go to the Supreme Court and file SLP only to expunge the same. Since you have acted in a biased manner, I once again humbly and most respectfully submit that you shall recuse from this case”. What the respondent had told the learned Judge is that if he (the learned Judge) were to record his anguish in the order, he would take the matter to the Supreme Court and have the same expunged. This is, in our considered opinion, clearly tantamount to interfering with the administration of justice “in any other manner”, as provided under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act. Therefore, we hold the respondent guilty of the third charge. 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Suo Motu Crl. Cont.Petn. No.766 of 2021 16 In this connection, the following passages from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Haridas Das vs. Usha Rani Banik & others2 seem apposite.

“29. Considered in the light of the aforesaid position in law, a bare reading of the statements makes it clear that those amount to a scurrilous attack on the integrity, honesty and judicial competence and impartiality of Judges. It is offensive and intimidating. The contemnor by making such scandalising statements and invective remarks has interfered and seriously shaken the system of administration of justice by bringing it down to disrespect and disrepute. It impairs confidence of the people in the court. Once door is opened to this kind of allegations, aspersions and imputations, it may provide a handle to the disgruntled litigants to malign the Judges, leading to character assassination. A good name is better than good riches. Immediately comes to one's mind Shakespeare's Othello, Act II, Scene iii, 167:

By attacking the reputation of Judges, the ultimate victim is the institution. The day the consumers of justice lose faith in the institution that would be the darkest day for mankind. The importance of judiciary needs no reiteration.” 17 In view of the aforesaid discussion:

18 Further, we direct that the respondent (Enrolment No.K/16/2010) shall not practise in the Madras High Court for a period of one year from the date of this order. We are fortified in holding so, in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in R.K.Anand vs. Registrar, Delhi High Court3 , wherein, it has been held as under:

19 A copy of this order is marked to the Secretary, Bar Council of Kerala and the Secretary, Supreme Court Bar Association, for taking appropriate action against the respondent in accordance with law.

3 (2009) 8 SCC 106 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Suo Motu Crl. Cont.Petn. No.766 of 2021 In fine, this Suo Motu Criminal Contempt Petition is disposed of on the aforesaid terms.

(P.N.P., J.) (R.H., J.) 17.12.2021 cad 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Suo Motu Crl. Cont.Petn. No.766 of 2021 P.N. PRAKASH, J.

and R. HEMALATHA, J.

cad To 1 The Registrar General Madras High Court, Chennai 600 104 2 The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras Chennai 600 014 3 The Secretary Supreme Court Bar Association (Regd.) Tilak Marg New Delhi - 110 001 4 The Secretary Bar Council of Kerala Bar Council Bhavan High Court Road Kochi Kerala 682 031 Suo Motu Crl. Contempt Petn. No.766 of 2021 17.12.2021 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis