Leena Manimekalai Passport Impounding Case: Madras High Court Declines Leave To Susi Ganesan For Filing Appeal Against Single Bench Order
The Madras High Court has refused to grant leave to film Director Susi Ganesan to appeal against the decision of a single bench which quashed the Regional Passport Office's order for impounding the passport of renowned filmmaker, poet and artist Leena Manimekalai.The first bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that there is...
The Madras High Court has refused to grant leave to film Director Susi Ganesan to appeal against the decision of a single bench which quashed the Regional Passport Office's order for impounding the passport of renowned filmmaker, poet and artist Leena Manimekalai.
The first bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that there is no substance in Ganesan's plea, especially after the Supreme Court has refused to interfere with the single bench order.
Ganesan argued that Manimekalai's passport was impounded by the Regional Passport Office under Section 10(3) (e) of Passport Act, citing the pendency of criminal proceedings against her (that were initiated by Ganesan himself alleging defamation). He submitted that she did not avail the appellate remedy under Section 11 of the Passport Act and challenged the impoundment via a writ petition.
He stated that the single Judge order will affect the outcome of his complaint in the criminal defamation case. "Without impoundment, accused Manimekalai can easily cause delay in trial" he submitted.
The Acting Chief Justice disagreed with Ganesan and clarified that the Supreme Court order has been clear about Manimekalai co-operating during trial in the criminal defamation case.It has also clearly stated that she is not required to remain physically present during the hearing. If the Supreme Court direction to complete the trial within four months is not abided by on account of her fault, the applicant has the liberty to file a contempt petition, the court added.
"Delay in trial is your only concern. Supreme Court has said that impounding the passport is not required and trial can be expedited. How can we go against the Supreme Court judgment and allow leave for you?", the court asked the applicant.
The court also questioned Ganesan's locus to challenge the single bench order since he was not a party to the writ petition filed by Manimekalai against the impounding order of Passport Authority.
The court, therefore, declined to grant leave for filing appeal. It noted that Ganesan's concern has been noted and elaborately dealt with by the apex court via its order in the Special Leave Petition dated 17th December, 2021.
"... Direction (of SC) quoted above shows that not only an observation has been made about the presence of accused in all hearings represented by the counsel, liberty has been granted to the trial court to proceed with the matter without requiring the presence of accused on all dates of hearing. Direction has been given otherwise by the High Court for completion of trial within four months via the order dated 3rd December, 2021. The same order was sought to be challenged by requesting the grant of leave for maintaining the plea based on allegations about possible delay in disposal of criminal defamation case. There is no substance in the applicant's submissions in light of the Supreme Court judgment and leave cannot be granted. Application filed and appeal is therefore dismissed", the court noted in the order.
Background
Leena Manimekalai, a renowned filmmaker, poet and artist, earlier approached the Madras High Court by way of a writ, challenging the decision of Regional Passport Officer, Chennai to impound her passport. In 2018, when the #MeToo Movement was in the fore, Leena came forward with sexual harassment allegations against Director Susi Ganesan. A criminal defamation case was pending against the filmmaker since 2019, filed by Susi Ganesan in the Chennai Magistrate Court.
In the petition before High Court, Manimekalai, through her Advocate, had submitted that the impounding order was passed by completely disregarding her reply to the show cause notice issued priorly. She also contended that the passport was renewed back in 2017, and since there wasn't any criminal proceedings against her at the time of renewal, it cannot be said that the renewal was completed by suppressing material facts.
Susi Ganesan was predetermined to harass her through the criminal defamation case, and the application filed before Saidapet Magistrate seeking directions to the concerned officer for impounding passport reveals his intentions, the petitioner stated. The plea was once closed by the Magistrate, which was challenged by Ganesan before High Court, but to no avail. The petitioner argued that it was only after this juncture that the Magistrate re-examined the earlier order upon a fresh petition by Susi Ganesan and directed the passport officer to impound, which in itself was an illegality.
Allowing the writ petition, Justice M. Dhandapani directed the Regional Passport Office to release the impounded passport within a period of one week from the receipt of the court's order in December.
Later in December, the apex court refused to interfere with the High Court order on Susi Ganesan's appeal.
On 20th January, 2022, Madras High Court passed an interim injunction to restrain Leena Manimekalai and film producer Susi Ganesan from going to the press or making social media comments regarding their respective contentions in the defamation suit filed by the latter over the #MeToo sexual harassment allegations.
Case Title: Susi Ganesan v. Leena Manimekalai & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 53
Case No: CMP/1492/2022