Tag: 123tea茶馆儿交友平台

Madras HC Initiates Contempt Proceedings Against Advocate For Falsely Accusing Its Registrar Of Being Ineligible To Hold Office; Imposes Cost Of Rs. 5L [Read Judgment]

Madras HC Initiates Contempt Proceedings Against Advocate For Falsely Accusing Its Registrar Of Being Ineligible To Hold Office; Imposes Cost Of Rs. 5L [Read Judgment]

first_imgTop StoriesMadras HC Initiates Contempt Proceedings Against Advocate For Falsely Accusing Its Registrar Of Being Ineligible To Hold Office; Imposes Cost Of Rs. 5L [Read Judgment] Akshita Saxena13 Oct 2020 8:32 PMShare This – x”The entire edifice of the allegations is a monument of falsehood monstrously created by the petitioner for knocking at the roots of the judicial system and the entire judiciary, as the petitioner has attempted to dislodge an important functionary of the High Court, that too even a lady officer, who has reportedly served the institution to the best of her integrity, honesty…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?Login”The entire edifice of the allegations is a monument of falsehood monstrously created by the petitioner for knocking at the roots of the judicial system and the entire judiciary, as the petitioner has attempted to dislodge an important functionary of the High Court, that too even a lady officer, who has reportedly served the institution to the best of her integrity, honesty and devotedness.” Noting that the Advocate in this case had “transcended all barriers of ethical behaviour by filing a false affidavit” that too against an important functionary of the institution (Registrar (Vigilance)), the Madras High Court on Monday suspended his license to practice, until further orders. “A licence to practice law is a serious calling and to convert it into an engine of falsehood for an attempted vilification of a judicial officer may possibly be a calculated and conspiratorial move in the background that the sixth respondent happens to be the Registrar Vigilance of the High Court, who is also responsible for reporting deviant behaviour in the subordinate judiciary, or other matters where vigilance enquiries are set up. We direct that the petitioner Mr.B.Sathish Kumar shall not practice as a lawyer until further orders, or unless permitted by this Court in the criminal contempt proceedings that have been initiated by us,” the Bench of Chief Justice AP Sahi and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy ordered. The Court also imposed an exemplary cost of Rs. 5,00,000 on the Petitioner for committing perjury and directed the Registrar General to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against him. The order has come in the writ of quo warranto recently filed by Kumar, alleging that the Registrar General (Vigilance), Ms. Poornima, was not eligible to hold the said office as she does not possess the basic qualification of 10+2+3 inasmuch as she did not undergo +2. Writ Of Quo Warranto Filed Against Incumbent Registrar General (Vigilance) Of Madras HC Finding the allegations to be baseless, the Court censured the Petitioner for making the High Court and its Registrar (Vigilance) a “victim” of his false ideologue. On a perusal of the Registrar’s educational records, so as to verify the correctness of the pivotal allegation made in the writ petition, the Court said, “We have thoroughly satisfied ourselves, as demonstrated above, after going through the entire records which are preserved in the High Court that the sixth respondent did not suffer from any ineligibility at the time of her selections or even today for holding the office of a Judicial Officer in the Subordinate Judiciary of the State of Tamil Nadu. The entire writ petition is an outcome of patent falsehood pleaded, which is worse than a house of cards and a castle built of sand.” The Court noted that the Petitioner, despite being warned by the High Court several times about the adverse consequences if the allegations so imputed are found to be false, pressed a “false affidavit” and lowered the esteem of the Court in the eyes of the public. It observed that there was nothing on record to show what source was tapped by the Petitioner to obtain details and certificates of the Registrar’s educational qualifications. Further, when enquired about the same, he made “veiled pretense”. In this backdrop the Court imposed heavy costs on the Petitioner, and clarified that this case is not that of inadequate information, but is a “clear case of false information served on a platter before this Court without any sense of responsibility.” It observed, “The petitioner, in our opinion, was making a veiled pretense about not having the knowledge of the educational qualifications of the sixth respondent. This, in our opinion, is a clear case of suggestio falsi and suppressio veri, where the petitioner has on record brought certain documents, which in no way reflect that the sixth respondent had not passed her 12 th Standard. Thus, we find no material to treat the petitioner being innocent or ignorant of any such fact. We have every reason to believe that the petitioner in the circumstances indicated above has chosen to file a false affidavit before this Court so as to gain orders of publicity, rather than any effort to pursue the path of truth.” The Bench also censured the Petitioner for “beating his drums in the press” without ascertaining the veracity of the allegations made by him. “We would have exercised restraint, but during the course of the hearing of the petition, the attitude of the petitioner was more defiant than responsible. This is also evident by his endeavour to reach to the press, which he thinks was the right way to vindicate his own scores,” the Court said. It added, “The petitioner has also disclosed and knows that the sixth respondent is occupying a sensitive post in the High Court of that of a Registrar Vigilance and it is, therefore, apparent that the petitioner appears to have resorted to pure falsehood by filing an incorrect and false affidavit that the sixth respondent has not completed her 12 th Standard examination before seeking University education. This is not only perjury, but a clear act to defile the image of the entire judicial system as if the High Court has employed a totally unqualified person. This spreading of false information by the petitioner and then converting it into a patently false affidavit is writ large on the face of the entire pleadings.” Click Here To Download Judgment Read Judgment Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more