'Hatched A Devious Plot': Madras High Court Holds Two Lawyers Guilty Of Contempt Of Court For Filing False Case Against Registrar

Two lawyers were found guilty of contempt of court by the Madras High Court on Friday for having pursued 'vexatious litigation' to remove a Registrar (Vigilance) by filing a false affidavit accusing her of holding the post in the absence of the required qualifications.

A Bench comprising Justices PN Prakash and RN Manjula observed,

"On a careful examination of the materials on record, we are fully satisfied that the alleged contemnors have acted in tandem and hatched a devious plot to manufacture the vexatious litigation in W.P.No.14434 of 2020, on the strength of patently false affidavit which was calculated to not only dislodge the then Registrar (Vigilance) from her post but also bring down the prestige of the High Court"

It further added,

"In addition, the duo had caused the petition to be widely circulated in the press, even prior to the admission of the matter before this Court and had thus brought the administration of justice into disrepute in the eyes of the public, without realizing the fact that their conduct, as officers of the Court, would amount to recklessly hurling stones at the institution, thereby bringing the administration of justice into disrepute."

Furthermore, the Court also expressed its reservations against the publication of the plea in media outlets even before the High Court got a chance to adjudicate upon it. Opining that such a conduct by the concerned lawyers hampers the prestige of the judiciary in the eyes of the public, the Court observed,

"If the alleged contemnors were interested in maintaining the dignity of the institution, the least they could have done was to have given a representation to the Registrar General alleging that Ms. Poornima had not cleared Plus Two examination. This was not done. Instead, a petition seeking a writ of quo warranto was filed and immediately thereafter, a news item was made to be published by them. Here, Ms. Poornima's reputation is not the subject matter of the contempt proceedings, but, the image of the High Court as an institution in the eye of the public."

Background

The instant petition had been filed in 2020 alleging that the then High Court Registrar of Vigilance, Poornima had not passed her 12th standard. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Sahi and Justice Sethilkumar had held such allegations to be baseless and had accordingly imposed Rs 5 lakh costs on the petitioners in addition to the initiation of contempt of court proceedings.

"An extraordinary situation arose when we found that the Sathish Kumar - Vasudevan duo was not alone in this misadventure and that there were some insiders of the judiciary who were having some grievances against Ms. Poornima. The judicial institution has to be protected not only from the onslaught of outsiders, but also from those who are attempting to destroy it from within," the Court remarked.

Before the Court, Sathish Kumar had contended that he had moved the instant petition on the urging of his senior, advocate Vasudevan. The Court also noted Sathish Kumar's submissions that he was just a 'pawn in the hands of his senior Vasudevan and that it was Vasudevan who had used him to file the quo warranto petition'.

However, Vasudevan denied such allegations but the Court remained unconvinced in light of the fact that Vasudevan had paid the costs imposed on Kumar by the earlier Bench.

"If Vasudevan has had no role in the filing of the writ petition, why should he give by cash, a huge sum of Rs.5 lakhs to Sathish Kumar? What prevented Vasudevan from making the deposit himself directly in the High Court Registry is a question for which there is no answer. The receipt dated 29.10.2020 extracted above smacks of legal illiteracy, in that, it does not contain the name of the lender, but, contains only the name of the lendee, viz., Sathish Kumar. In other words, it bears the name of only Sathish Kumar and not Vasudevan. This probablises the defence of Sathish Kumar that the receipt was obtained by Vasudevan to show to his handlers in the subordinate judiciary to collect the money", the Bench remarked.

The Court further opined that the Registrar Poornima was probably being targeted for executing the directions of the Vigilance Committee. Furthermore, the lawyers had placed reliance on the name of a retired district judge for contending that he had engineered such a 'devious plot'.

However, the Court pointed out that the district judge had already passed away twenty days before his name had been taken for the first time. Accordingly, the Bench remarked,

"... the duo found themselves in a very sticky wicket. They appear to have conveniently palmed off the grease of their litigative excesses on a dead man, who, obviously, could offer no counter to their allegations from the after-life."

Penalty Imposed

The Court ruled that both lawyers Sathish Kumar and Vasudevan were guilty of contempt of Court under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (2 counts) and Section 2(c)(i) read with Section 12(1) of the Act.

Kumar was ordered to pay a fine amounting to Rs 2,000 for each charge (Rs 6,000 for three charges) defaulting which he would have to undergo a week's simple imprisonment for each charge. However, he was permitted to resume his High Court practice.

While granting the sentence to Kumar, the Court observed,

"He is a Dalit; he hails from a poor family and he has to take care of a family comprising his parents, wife and three minor children; he has suffered enough pursuant to the order of the First Bench suspending him from practice and any further punishment would ruin him completely. We find that though he was defiant during the proceedings in W.P. No.14434 of 2020, he has completely mellowed down and the unconditional apology tendered by him appears genuine"

However, in Vasudevan's case, the Court opined that he had remained 'defiant' all along although the Court found that both he and Sathish Kumar had clearly acted in tandem "to recklessly engineer a false litigation with the sole object of damaging the judiciary."

Therefore, in addition to a fine of Rs 2,000 for each charge (Rs 6,000 for three charges), Vasudevan was also sentenced to undergo a month of simple imprisonment for each of the three charges framed against him. He was also barred from practicing before the High Court for a period of one year.

Accordingly, the contempt case was disposed of.

Case Title: High Court of Madras v. B. Sathish Kumar

Click Here To Read/Download Order