Nod sought for contempt case against Stalin

Submitting a CD containing the video of the speech, the petitioner Diwakar has contended that while delivering an election campaign speech at Theni, Stalin claimed that the High Court was somehow ‘managed/fixed/compromised’ due to which the Speaker’s decision was upheld in the writ petitions challenging the disqualification of the 18 MLAs.

He further noted that the DMK leader’s express insinuation is that the decision of the High Court was granted for extraneous considerations and the judges were fixed to deliver the judgements. The plea pointed out that the Supreme Court has very clearly held that imputing partiality, corruption, bias, improper motives to a judge is scandalization of the court and would be contempt of court. Also, noting the Supreme Court observation that even imputation of lack of impartiality of fairness to a judge in the discharge of his official duties amounts to contempt, the plea submitted that based on this the statement of DMK president falls within the scope of criminal contempt as defined by the Supreme Court.

Further, pointing out that Stalin has imputed motive and corruption charge against the judges of the Madras high court by stating that this court was ‘managed’ to deliver a verdict, Diwakar sought the Advocate General to grant consent to him to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt against Stalin under the Contempt of Court Act.