One more advocate practising in the Madras High Court has initiated criminal contempt of court proceedings against disqualified MLA Thanga Tamilselvan for his “scandalous” remarks against the institution for having delivered a split verdict on June 14 in a batch of cases filed by him and 17 others challenging their disqualification.
Advocate-General Vijay Narayan has taken the petition filed by B. Kannan on file and issued notice to the disqualified MLA asking him to appear either in person or through his lawyer on July 10. On that day, the alleged contemnor must convince the A-G as to why he should not grant consent for proceeding with the contempt plea.
V. Srimathi, a lawyer, had filed a similar contempt petition against Mr. Thanga Tamilselvan.
Under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971, obtaining consent from the A-G was a sine qua non before prosecuting a person for criminal contempt.
In his petition, Mr. Kannan recalled that a Division Bench of Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M. Sundar had delivered the split verdict with the former upholding the Speaker’s order disqualifying the 18 MLAs and the latter setting it aside on grounds of perversity, non-compliance with principles of natural justice and mala fide.Immediately, the matter was referred to a third judge. Aggrieved over it, the disqualified MLA began “scandalising the entire system of administration of justice... His scurrilous and outrageous comments are clearly an interference with the judicial proceedings and the contemnor is liable to be punished for the same,” the petitioner claimed.Submitting video clippings of television interviews given by the disqualified MLA, the petitioner said, in one of the interviews, the disqualified MLA had alleged that the batch of 18 cases had been referred to a third judge only to delay the matter. He accused the State government of having “purchased” the split verdict so that it can remain in power for one more year.
In another interview, the disqualified MLA “had the audacity to say that what the Chief Justice had done was not only wrong but also outrageous,” the petitioner said. He went on to state that the acts committed by the contemnor were not only shameful and unwarranted but also displayed his lack of faith in the Constitution and the judiciary.
The petitioner pointed out that the disqualified MLA had so far not apologised for his “shameful statements” and had instead been claiming that he was only voicing the views of the people at large. Turning a blind eye to his attitude would spell a doomsday to the entire justice delivery system, the petitioner said and sought AG’s consent.