Won't tolerate verbal abuse of judicial officers: Court

A division bench comprising Justices P N Prakash and B Pugalendhi on finding strong grounds for initiation of criminal contempt said, "In our view, calling a judicial officer ‘bastard’ would not only demoralise him, but undoubtedly interfere with the due course of justice by instilling fear in his mind."

On observing that once ‘fear’ afflicts a judicial officer, he will not be able to discharge the onerous responsibility of administering justice, the bench said, "If a disgruntled litigant is allowed to go scot free even after calling a judicial officer a ‘bastard’, the judicial officer will not be able to command respect in this court from litigants and other stake holders. All this will hamper the administration of justice."

As per the case, Anganan, a serving military personnel, succeeded in a civil dispute with one Manoharan. Upset over this on March 5, 2006, Manoharan came to Anaganan’s house and berated the family in vulgar epithets and exposed his private part by untying the dothi worn by him. He also attempted to pull the hand of Anganan’s daughter.

On these allegations, a police complaint was lodged against Manoharan under Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. Since he pleaded not guilty, a full-fledged trial was held after which Rajapalayam Judicial Magistrate K Arunachalam sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment.

Thereafter, challenging the conviction, Manoharan filed an appeal in the Virudhunagar Sessions Court in 2012 and the same is pending. While so, he filed another plea before the Madurai High Court bench seeking to quash the charges against him.

But the appeal examiner on finding about the pending appeal, felt that the petition was not maintainable. Hence, he refused to number the petition and posted it before the court for deciding the issue of maintainability.

But Manoharan in the representation sent to the Chief Justice called Judicial Magistrate Arunachalam as ‘Bastard’ for denying him justice, besides terming Appeal Examiner Ganesan as a ‘Fraud’. Incidentally, he owned up to what he said and expressed no remorse for the utterances.

However, the bench on holding that the high court has a solemn duty to protect and safeguard the judicial officers of the subordinate judiciary against such brazen attacks by disgruntled litigants said, “We will be showing misplaced sympathy if we treat elements like Manoharan with kid-gloves as that will embolden others to mount such attacks on defenseless subordinate judicial officials, who are not clothed with any power under the Contempt of Courts Act to rein in such attackers.”