Contempt case against Veeramani dismissed

Chennai, Nov 30: Madras High Court today closed a contempt of court case against Dravidar Kazhagam President K Veeramani as not maintainable.

A Division Bench comprising Justice P D Dinakaran and Justice P P S Janarthana Rajan closed the contempt of court petition filed by advocate Rajendran, seeking to punish Mr Veeramani for 'deliberate, wilful and false allegations' against a judge of this court, thereby interfering with court proceedings.

According to the petitioner, during the course of hearing on petitions challenging the local body elections, a judge made observations that it was part and parcel of the proceedings and did not hurt anybody. But Mr Veeramani staged an agitation in November, criticising the conduct of the presiding judge on the allegations.

This amounted to contempt of court, he added.

The Bench said though the contempt petition was not admitted, Mr Veeramani voluntarily appeared before the court, noting news reports and submitted he had not said anything in his representation, in the press report or during the agitation that would scandalise or drag down the authority of any court, or interfere with the judicial proceedings.

Infact, his agitation was intended to uphold human dignity and self respect for every individual, which was protected under the Constitution.

'We are undoubtedly clear that it is the fundamental obligation of every citizen to keep streams of justice flowing clearly, purely and uninteruptedly. When remarks made on judicial proceedings are being complained about, the test should be whether such remarks create a serious risk or the course of justice may be interfered with.'
The Bench said ''we are aware of the fact that judicial restraint might better be called judicial respect, that is, respect by the judiciary, respect to those who come before the court as well as to other coordinate branches of the State, Executive and Legislature. There must be mutual respect or it will be neither good for the judiciary nor for the judicial process. Therefore the inherent power of the Bench in dispensation of justice lies to act freely upon its own conviction with equal judicial restraint.'' In this spirit, apart from holding that the contempt petition was not maintainable in law the bench added ''we also make it clear there was no need to have made much ado about the issue, said to have taken place on October 17 as published in the media as there cannot be any second opinion that human dignity and self-respect of every individual has to be upheld and the spirt of democracy should be maintained by mutual respect between all three wings of the state.

Therefore, a quietus can be given to the entire episode, leaving the matter buried.''

UNI