![]() Online edition of India's National Newspaper Friday, Aug 29, 2008 ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Tamil Nadu |
|
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
Advts: Retail Plus | Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary |
Tamil Nadu
-
Madurai
MADURAI: The Madras High Court on Thursday refused to accede to a request made by a few Bar Associations to desist from “perpetuating” its enquiry into a fake case filed in the Madurai Bench. Justice K. Chandru said he could not renege on the oath of office he had taken to uphold the rule of law without fear or favour and drop the lawful proceedings at the request of the Bar. The matter relates to a writ petition which the petitioner herself had denied to have filed. On August 18, the judge issued notices to the lawyer on record as well the one who had attested the affidavit, seeking an explanation. On Thursday, many lawyers, including the present as well as former office-bearers of the Bar Associations, appeared before the judge and requested him not to continue with the enquiry. However, the judge said it was not an issue to be discussed between the Bench and the Bar. “When the court is being used for ulterior purposes, it cannot shut its eyes and behave as if nothing had happened.” “Is the Bar interested in knowing the truth or not? You must help the court probe the issue. You must be shocked to know that such things are happening. Why the matter should be closed at the threshold,” he asked the office-bearers. Mr. Justice Chandru said their submissions would send a wrong signal, since the two lawyers were not guilty now. “Even the guilt cannot be established by me. It can be done only by the authorities concerned.” Subsequently, he perused the explanation submitted by the two lawyers, They claimed the petition was filed on the basis of the instructions given to them by a lower court advocate. The judge ordered notice to him, returnable by September 1. Mr. Justice Chandru said he would have referred the matter to the police if the third person had not been an advocate. “Only because he is also a lawyer, I want to hear him before deciding on the issue.”
Printer friendly
page
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Home |
Copyright © 2008, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|