Advocate-General Vijay Narayan has issued notices to Thuglak ’s Editor S. Gurumurthy on two applications filed before him seeking consent to initiate criminal contempt of court proceedings against him for his comments about the judiciary at the Tamil magazine’s annual meet with its readers on January 14.
The notices have been issued on the applications filed by Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam leader S. Doraisamy and advocate S. Kumaradevan seeking the Advocate-General’s consent under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The object of the Section was to avoid filing of frivolous criminal contempt petitions in the High Court.
After assigning numbers to the two petitions, the Advocate-General has issued individual notices to Mr. Gurumurthy asking him to appear either in person or through his counsel on February 16 for a detailed hearing. The Advocate-General has also asked the first applicant’s counsel V. Elangovan and the second applicant to attend the hearing.
Plea for suo motu action
Yet another lawyer P. Pugalenthi had filed a criminal contempt of court petition in the High Court against the Editor. However, his counsel M. Radhakrishnan chose not to seek the Advocate-General’s consent by relying upon a Supreme Court ruling and instead impressed upon the court the need to initiate the contempt proceedings suo motu.
Mr. Gurumoorthy made the contentious remarks while answering a question from one of the readers on the judicial delay in deciding corruption cases. He said the delay was because Supreme Court judges get appointed by politicians and that they get appointed only by beseeching one person or the other and by holding on to their feet. However, the next day, he expressed regret for the remarks and clarified that his intent was to say how some candidates for judges for even the highest court go and beseech politicians for support. “But in the spur and heat of the moment, I mentioned judges instead of candidates,” he said in a statement.
Further, clarifying that the remarks were completely unintended, he said: “I may add that the statement was in the course of my extempore reply to a provocative question and not in any deliberate article or writing which would show my intent.”
