Chennai Man Found Guilty of Contempt for Alleging Genocide by Madras High Court Judges
In a significant legal development, a man from Chennai has been held guilty of contempt of court after making repeated accusations that judges of the Madras High Court committed genocide and crimes against humanity. The ruling was delivered on Thursday by a division bench comprising Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman, who emphasized the gravity of the allegations against the judiciary.
Final Opportunity for Unconditional Apology
The court has provided a final opportunity for the contemnor, identified as T Ashok Surana of Mylapore in Chennai, to file an affidavit tendering an unconditional apology. The bench specified that the affidavit must clearly express genuine regret and include an undertaking that he will refrain from making such allegations in the future. Failure to comply within the granted time will result in appropriate punishment, including a potential one-month simple imprisonment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, without further reference.
Background of the Contempt Case
The issue stems from a suo motu contempt petition initiated by a division bench of the Madras High Court in 2020. This petition was filed in response to scandalous allegations made by Surana against one of the judges on the bench. After multiple hearings, the case was transferred to the current bench, which has been overseeing the proceedings.
Upon reviewing the records, the bench noted that Surana had adopted similar tactics with more than 20 judges of the court, leading to their recusal from hearing his cases. Previous judicial orders had cautioned him and recorded findings on the impermissibility of his conduct. Despite these warnings, Surana persisted with the same allegations before the current bench, demonstrating a pattern of disrespect towards the judiciary.
Judicial Observations on the Contemnor's Conduct
The judges highlighted that Surana's reply statement showed no signs of regret or apology for his earlier statements. Instead, he reiterated the allegations and used inappropriate and intemperate language against the court. This behavior underscored a deliberate attempt to undermine judicial authority and disrupt legal proceedings.
The court's decision underscores the importance of maintaining respect for judicial institutions and the consequences of making baseless accusations. The case serves as a reminder of the legal boundaries in criticizing the judiciary and the severe penalties for contemptuous actions.
