Contempt Jurisdiction Extends To Scandalising Attacks On Sitting Judges: Madras High Court Finds Man Guilty For Accusing Sitting Judges Of 'Genocide'
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Madras, Division Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice M. Jothiraman has held a man guilty of contempt of court for making scandalising allegations against sitting judges of the Madras High Court, including an accusation that a judge had committed “genocide” and a “crime against humanity”. The court recorded that the contemnor had repeatedly made similar comments against more than 20 judges and used intemperate and unwarranted expressions against the judiciary. While finding the contempt charges proved, the bench granted a final opportunity to file an affidavit with an unconditional apology and an undertaking not to repeat such allegations, failing which it said it would proceed to impose punishment, including simple imprisonment for one month; the matter was listed for compliance on March 9, 2026.
The proceedings arose from a suo motu contempt petition initiated pursuant to an order dated 17.02.2020 of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, following observations made in earlier writ proceedings. The contemnor had filed a writ petition as party-in-person. By order dated 12.11.2019, the writ petition was dismissed after the Bench recorded that the contemnor made serious allegations against a sitting Judge and declined to argue the matter before the Bench.
The matter was directed to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for initiation of appropriate contempt action. Thereafter, a Division Bench framed charges under Section 2(c)(i) and Section 2(c)(ii), punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Despite service of notice and opportunity to respond, the contemnor reiterated the allegations in his reply statement and called upon the Bench to withdraw the notice and apologise.
The Court recorded from the earlier writ order: “Today, the party-in-person is present. He harangued that he will not make his submissions before this Bench, because, one of us (P.N.Prakash, J.) has committed genocide and crime against humanity on a scale unknown to mankind.” It further recorded: “He further stated that he has filed a case against one of us (P.N.Prakash, J.) and on that score, this Bench should not hear this case.”
The earlier Bench had observed: “This is not a solitary attempt by the present party-in-person to intimidate the Judges of this Court and successfully prevent them from hearing his cases.” It added: “He has adopted these tactics with more than 20 Judges of this Court and has ensured that they had recused themselves from hearing his cases.” The Court also recorded: “It is high time that this Court puts a full stop to such pernicious techniques.”
While framing charges, the Division Bench recorded that the contemnor was liable under Section 2(c)(i) for making “derogatory and scandalous allegations” and under Section 2(c)(ii) for prejudicing the due course of judicial proceedings.
In the present proceedings, the Bench extracted from the reply statement: “By this reply statement, you are stripped of your powers conferred by the Constitution to be exercised till you are exonerated or released by another competent authority namely another DB, or Full court.” The contemnor further stated: “Therefore the only escape route for this Hon'ble DB to continue as Hon ble Lord Justices of this Hon'ble High Court will be my giving you an opportunity to withdraw the notice issued by this Hon'ble DB with an unabashed apology, payment of compensation and recusal to hear any case in which I am a party in future.”
After considering the record, the Court observed: “The repeated making of scandalous allegations against this Court and the learned Judges, coupled with the use of intemperate and unwarranted expressions in the course of judicial proceedings, amounts to scandalising the Court and interferes with the due course of judicial proceedings and the administration of justice.” It concluded: “This Court is therefore satisfied that the charges framed against the contemnor stand proved and that he has committed contempt of Court.”
After holding that the charges stood proved and that the contemnor had committed contempt of Court, the Bench directed: “Accordingly, while holding the contemnor guilty of contempt of Court, this Court grants a final opportunity to the contemnor to file an affidavit tendering an unconditional apology for the allegations and statements made by him against this Court, the learned Judges of this Court and the judicial orders passed by them. The affidavit shall clearly express genuine regret and contain an undertaking that he shall not hereafter make any such allegations or statements. The affidavit of unconditional apology shall be filed on or before the next date of hearing.”
“It is made clear that the apology shall be unconditional and reflect genuine regret.” It also directed: “In the event the contemnor fails to file such affidavit within the time granted, this Court shall proceed to impose appropriate punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, including sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one month, without further reference. Post the matter on 09.03.2026 for reporting compliance.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. V. Vijaya Shankar
For the Respondents: Mr. T. Ashok Surana, Party-in-Person
Case Title: High Court of Madras v. T. Ashok Surana
Case Number: Suo Motu Contempt Petition No.391 of 2020
Bench: Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice M. Jothiraman
