Justice N. Kirubakaran of the Madras High Court on Tuesday sought to know whether the police had taken any action against those who made “derogatory” remarks or attributed motives to Chief Justice Indira Banerjee over the split verdict delivered by the court in the case pertaining to the disqualification of 18 AIADMK MLAs. The Chief Justice, on her part, had upheld the disqualification.
Presiding over a Division Bench along with Justice R. Pongiappan, the senior judge told Additional Advocate General S.R. Rajagopal that he was pained to come across such scathing attacks against the Chief Justice, and wanted to know whether the police had taken any action so far against the individuals responsible.
“The honourable Chief Justice may not bother about such comments because of her magnanimity but we cannot keep quiet. If this can happen to the Chief Justice of the highest court of the State, what [is the guarantee that it] cannot happen to district judges, sub judges and judicial magistrates? We have to protect the judiciary from such onslaught,” he said.
Wondering how a section of people could expect judgments to be delivered as per its whims and fancies, the judge said, “It is a very sorry state of affairs. Even I was trolled on social media for having asked how government school teachers could strike work and put the students to inconvenience. Such things are not right.”
Justice Kirubakaran also found fault with television channels for allowing participants of debate shows to make “disparaging and irresponsible” comments against the judiciary with complete impunity. He suggested that every participant must be warned of severe consequences if he/she makes such comments during live telecasts.
The observations were made during the hearing of a writ petition filed by a tenant, of a three storey building in Mylapore, who had sought for a direction to Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to take appropriate action against a group of lawyers for ransacking the building at the instance of the landlord due to a rental dispute.
The judges came down heavily on the police for not having taken stern action against the erring lawyers and said: “It is shameful to note that these so called advocates play the role of paid goondas.” They directed the AAG to submit by June 25, details of action initiated so far to identify and prosecute the group of lawyers.
Further, stating that huge delays in disposal of rental control proceedings before lower courts were the prime reason for landlords resorting to such violent modes of taking possession of their properties, the Division Bench directed the Registrar of Small Causes Courts in the city to provide elaborate data related to such cases. The details were ordered to be placed before the court on the next date of hearing, by which time the AAG was asked to find out the action taken against critics who had made personal comments against the Chief Justice.
