Madras HC refuses contempt of courtroom case towards DMK chief over ‘malafide intention’ comment
On twenty fifth August, Justice N Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court declined to pursue contempt of courtroom costs towards RS Bharathi, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) organisation secretary, and others who criticised him for reviewing the acquittal and discharge of three sitting DMK Ministers in disproportionate belongings circumstances towards them.
Advocate R Krishnamurthy had urged him to take motion towards Bharathi. However, Justice Venkatesh stated, “Those who cannot tolerate criticism are unfit to hold public office.” Adv Krishnamurthy contended that the DMK member’s criticism of the choose and accusations of mala fides within the suo motu revision proceedings amounted to contempt of Court.
Justice Venkatesh stated, “Let anyone talk anything. I know that I have been acting true to my conscience. I am sitting in this office consciously and performing my duties, knowing very well that I would get brickbats, too, for my work, but that will never prevent me from working effectively as a judge of this Court.”
While talking in Tamil, he acknowledged that solely they know if they’ve acted truthfully. They talked about that others might have a number of interpretations however won’t get entangled in these discussions. Their precedence is caring for the final litigant standing earlier than the Court, and they’re extra involved about that than the rest.
Justice Venkatesh oversees circumstances towards Members of Parliament and the Legislative Assembly (MPs and MLAs). Recently, he took it upon himself to evaluate the acquittal of Tamil Nadu Higher Education Minister Ok Ponmudi and his spouse, in addition to the discharge of State Finance and Revenue ministers Thangam Thennarasu and KSSR Ramachandran in circumstances involving disproportionate belongings.
Justice Venkatesh expressed his concern about dealing with the circumstances involving Tamil Nadu Higher Education Minister Ok Ponmudi, his spouse and State Finance and Revenue ministers Thangam Thennarasu and KSSR Ramachandran. He prompt that the courts, the defence, and the prosecution might have labored collectively to guard the accused Ministers. Following the decision, Bharathi accused the choose of being selective in taking on circumstances associated to DMK ministers.
Speaking to media individuals on the DMK headquarters, Anna Arivalayam stated that although the courts have the authority to take suo motu cognisance of the circumstances, the stated choose appeared to have “acted with a malafide intention”. When requested if DMK was seeing it as a political intervention, he stated, “I will not call it political intervention, but justice Anand Venkatesh has acted with a malafide intention. The judge had selected the case on a “pick and choose” foundation. Already when he took up a case in a similar way in 2022, the Supreme Court pulled him up.”
