Isabella Mariam

The Madras High Court at Madurai, Division Bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice K Kumaresh Babu, while dealing with court-supervised administration of the Pachaiyappa Trust, directed the Director General of Police, the Commissioner of Police, and the Assistant Commissioner of Police concerned to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated for failing to act on a complaint about persons allegedly misbehaving with the court-appointed administrator at the Trust’s college premises. The Bench recorded that the incident was reported to the jurisdictional police but no action had followed and treated the inaction as an interference with the court’s functioning since the administrator was acting on its behalf. The officers were directed to appear on January 30, 2026 and file a report.

The matter arose from a review application concerning the administration of a public charitable trust, in which the Court had earlier appointed an Administrator to manage the trust affairs. Pursuant to earlier directions, the Court-appointed Administrator submitted a report stating incidents that occurred during the course of administration. An additional report dated 02.01.2026 was also placed before the Court.

Also Read: High Court Cannot Direct Police To Ensure Section 41A CrPC Compliance While Refusing To Quash FIR; Supreme Court

The report disclosed that on 23.12.2025, certain individuals allegedly entered the college premises under the trust and misbehaved with the Administrator. The report further recorded that foul language was used against the Administrator, who was functioning pursuant to orders of the Court. Following the incident, a complaint was lodged by the Secretary of the Trust before the jurisdictional police authorities, including the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kilpauk.

The Administrator’s report, along with the police complaint, was placed before the Court. It was brought to the Court’s notice that despite the passage of time, no action had been initiated by the police on the said complaint. The Court examined the contents of the report, the nature of the incident, and the response, or lack thereof, from the police authorities. The proceedings were considered in the context of the Administrator acting under the authority of the Court and discharging judicially entrusted responsibilities.

The Court examined the report submitted by the Court-appointed Administrator and recorded that “the contention of the report by the Administrator appointed by this Court is very disturbing”. It noted that the incident was “directly against the Administrator appointed by this Court, who is also a former Judge of this Court”.

Referring to the conduct complained of, the Court recorded that “some unruly elements had barged into the college premises and has misbehaved with the Court appointed Administrator” and further observed that “the foul language and the abuse against the Administrator had been hurled by the unruly elements”. The Court took note that the incident was reported to the jurisdictional police and that a formal complaint had been lodged.

On the issue of police inaction, the Court observed that “in spite of reporting the incident to the jurisdictional police, so far no action has been taken against the offenders”. It further recorded that “it has been informed across the bar that no action has been initiated by the jurisdictional police on the complaint”.

The Bench expressed concern over the implications of such inaction, stating that “even after the matter is brought to the notice of the jurisdictional Police, no action so far, has been taken”. The Court then linked the incident and the inaction to the institutional role of the Administrator, observing that “the abuse of the unruly elements and inaction by the Police is a direct attack on the Judiciary, as the Administrator appointed by this Court acts on behalf of it”.

The Court treated the issue as one affecting the administration of justice and considered it necessary to seek an explanation from senior police officials before proceeding further.

Also Read: Madras High Court Terms Live-In Relationships as a "Cultural Shock", Observes That ‘Wife’ Status Should Be Granted Under Gandharva Marriage to Protect Women.

The Court directed that “before proceeding further, we direct the Director General of Police, Commissioner of Police, Chennai, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kilpauk range to show cause as to why contempt proceedings shall not be initiated against them for their inaction on the complaint enclosed with the report of the Hon'ble Administrator”.

The Registry is directed to serve the copy of this order along with the report of the Hon'ble Administrator along with enclosure to the learned Advocate General and the Public Prosecutor. The Officers mentioned above to appear before us in person or through their counsel on 30.01.2026 and file a report” and ordered the matter to be listed on the said date.

The Court directed the Court-appointed Administrator to take further steps in relation to the election process of the Trust. “The Hon’ble Administrator to list out the representations and suggestions received in that regard and also offer his views on the same qua the bye-laws of Trust. Such report shall be placed before this Court on 03.03.2026” for consideration, including in the context of the pending proceedings referred to in the report.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. R. Srinivas, Advocate, for Mr. S. Sai Sankar

For the Respondents: Mr. Om Prakash, Senior Counsel, for Mr. M. R. Jothimanian, Mr. R. Sidhath, Additional Government Pleader, Mr. A. K. Athiban Vijay, Advocate

Case Title: G. Anbazhagan v. S. Jeyachandran & Ors.
Case Number: Review Application (Appeal) No. 116 of 2023
Bench: Justice G. Jayachandran, Justice K. Kumaresh Babu