Today, (1 September 2022) I appeared before a Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in compliance with the notice issued to me.
Justice GR Swaminathan initiated a suo motu contempt against me for my statement “The entire higher judiciary is riddled with corruption” in a YouTube channel.
In response to the notice I appeared before the specially convened Bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and B. Pugalenthi. This bench was convened specially to hear this contempt against me.
As soon as the matter was called I was called by Justice Pugalenthi to come directly before them as I was standing in the sides amidst the hugely gathered advocates who were having an amusing time.
Justice Swaminathan commenced with ‘what is your reply to the show cause notice’. I told the Bench, “Sirs, I have not been given any copies. Copies may be served’
Unusually two court staff were recording the proceedings in their mobile. One for the Bench and one for me.
Justice Swaminathan, asked ‘What copies ?. We have issued a show cause notice. Did you say ‘the entire higher judiciary is riddled with corruption or not in YouTube interview’
I replied in the affirmative and said, “I want copies of the YouTube, transcripts or excerpts of the interview”, to which Swaminathan shot back. “You take the copies”.
Justice B Pugalenthi
Justice Pugalenthi continued. “Haven’t you engaged any counsel ?”
I said, “Sir, I am arguing my case on my own”
“Are you a law graduate ?” asked Justice Pugalenthi to which I said, “Sir, I am just a matric. I was appointed at a young age under compassionate grounds in government. As the other Lordship knows already, I am surviving on the subsistence allowance provided to me as I am under suspension”.
“Why don’t you engage a counsel” asked Justice Pugalenthi.
“Sir, I tried a few advocates, they are reluctant as they have to appear before the Bench, after appearing for me. So I decided to appear in person”
“Do you want to file your reply in writing ?”
“If necessary I will file in writing, I need time, as I am not conversant with procedures of court”
“We can appoint some one from Legal Aid. Do you have any one in mind” asked Justice Pugalenthi.
“I would like senior counsel NR Elango to represent me” I told to the surprise of many advocates. NR Elango is a DMK Rajya Sabha MP a senior advocate.
Senior Advocate and RS MP N R Elango
“How long you want to file your reply ?”
“It is for the court to decide”
“Is one week enough ?”
“Yes sir”
Justice GR Swaminathan, immediately posted the matter to 8th of September for filing reply in the contempt.
Whether senior advocate NR Elango will represent me in the contempt proceedings or not is anyone’s guess. But let me put it clear. My statement will be fully defended and I will be using this opportunity to expose how the judiciary has become porous and how people have completely lost faith in the judiciary. How the “judges appointing judges’ mode has enabled the judiciary to make whimsical appointments and how they judges who are drawing salary from tax payers money are literally not accountable to any one and behave like gods.
Before I part, let me quote liberally from a piece written by senior Counsel Prasanth Bushan.
“The Courts in India are virtually unaccountable. In assuring their independence from the executive, impeachment was made the only method of accountability for judges in the Constitution. This has proved to be illusory as was demonstrated so starkly in the V. Ramaswami case. At the same time, the Courts and judges have been reluctant to evolve even an in-house system of self-monitored accountability. The result is a situation where they have enormous power without any accountability – a situation tailor-made for breeding sloth, arrogance and abuse of power.
It is against this background that one has to examine the right – indeed the need – for free discussion and criticism of the role being played by the courts in this country. In a democracy like ours where every institution is exercising power on behalf of the people, are the people not entitled to scrutinise, discuss and comment upon the actions of the judiciary? Obviously every institution, including the judiciary can go wrong. Every institution, including the judiciary has its share of black sheep and corrupt judges. Even the Chief Justice of India said so recently in Kerala.
The judiciary is peopled by judges who are human, and being human, they are occasionally motivated by considerations other than an objective view of law and justice. It would be foolhardy to contend that none of them, at least some times, are motivated by considerations of their own personal ideology, affiliations, predilections, biases, and indeed even by nepotistic and corrupt considerations. In this day and age of common and frequent social interaction between politicians and judges, instances of judges being ‘spoken to’ on matters pending before them in court are also not unheard of.
In stifling all criticism by the threatened exercise of the power of contempt, the issue in a democratic society is ultimately one of the accountability of the judiciary itself. In order to stifle free speech and comments on the Courts, even an occasional exercise of this power is enough to deter most persons from saying anything that might annoy their Lordships. Perhaps the most important reason for lack of reforms in the judiciary is the reluctance of the Press to write about and discuss the state of affairs within it for fear of contempt.
It is a mistaken notion to think that the authority or dignity of the courts can be maintained by using the contempt of court jurisdiction to punish and thus stifle public criticism, however harsh, of the judiciary, or even public discussion of the perception of the extent or levels of corruption prevailing in the judiciary, be they at the apex of the judiciary. The dignity, authority and public confidence in the courts or judges cannot be maintained by seeking to silence outspoken criticism or even outspoken expression of perception of corruption in the judiciary. That confidence is maintained by the public perception of the actions of the judiciary and the conduct of its judges, and whether they are perceived to be generally just, fair and in public interest. The public perception of the conduct of the judiciary and its judges is built on the basis of observation over a long period of time and by the shared perception of a large number of people. Any wild accusation or allegations by irresponsible persons or disgruntled litigants are dismissed by the people with the contempt that they deserve. It is only when persons, who are generally perceived to be responsible, are voicing opinion and criticism which is perceived by the public to be responsible and based on facts and circumstances which are relevant, that such opinion or criticism is taken seriously by the people and is going to affect their perception about the judiciary. This is exactly how it should be in a democracy. Any attempt to use contempt of court jurisdiction to silence such voices of criticism or dissent or such airing of corruption perception by such people, would cause far greater damage to the image, the public perception of, and public confidence in the judiciary. It would in fact lead people to suspect that things are more seriously amiss in the judiciary than even they had suspected, and it will engender great resentment and even contempt for the judiciary. Such actions would have exactly the opposite effect of what law of Contempt seeks to prevent.
PS : All the hearings in this contempt case will be reported promptly.
