P. Rathinam, a 68-year-old lawyer cum social activist who created a furore in the Madras High Court Bench here by sitting on an indefinite fast inside the court buildings since Wednesday in order to “expose those judges who act against their oath of office” withdrew his fast on Thursday afternoon.
The lawyer was aggrieved against the refusal of a Division Bench on Tuesday to pass interim orders in a public interest litigation filed by him seeking to quash a criminal case registered by the Keelavalavu police in Melur Taluk near here against advocate B. Stalin of Ettimangalam on March 10.
The PIL petition filed in the name of another lawyer G. Bagavath Singh also sought for a direction to register a case on the basis of a complaint lodged by Stalin against the Melur Inspector of Police and order the matter to be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Mr. Rathinam met Justice Chitra Venkataraman, the administrative judge of the High Court Bench, on Wednesday before sitting on a fast inside the court buildings and informed her of his decision. She persuaded him to reconsider his decision but in vain.
Thereafter, the Registrar (Administration) S. Udayan pleaded with the aged lawyer to give up the fast. But he did not relent and stayed in the court buildings overnight. Three other lawyers, including his junior R. Venkatesan, accompanied him during night hours.
On Thursday morning, Justice K.K. Sasidharan met the lawyer and requested him to give up the fast. He was also made to talk with former Supreme Court judge V.R. Krishna Iyer. But the talks did not fructify and many more lawyers, including S. Vanchinathan, extended their support to Mr. Rathinam.
Senior judges in the High Court Bench held a meeting to discuss the issue at around 10.30 am and decided to keep the Chief Justice M. Yusuf Eqbal informed of the happenings. The court proceedings were delayed by over 40 minutes owing to the urgently convened judges' meeting.
Subsequently, a section of advocates staged a demonstration in the High Court campus in his support in the afternoon and also contemplated boycotting the court proceedings on Friday. In the meantime, W. Peter Ramesh Kumar, also a lawyer, made a representation to the judges seeking permission for a hunger strike by about 500 advocates in the court campus.
The representation stated that the protest was intended towards “upholding the unity, integrity and prestige of the judiciary; the unity between the Bench and the Bar; and the dignity and sanctity of the legal fraternity in general.”
