When a judge made remarks that were completely unwarranted against women and against Christians, a group of lawyers got it deleted from the records by standing up to the judge. The Leaflet salutes lawyers who went out of their way to ensure propriety and justice in 2020.
—–
On August 13, 2019, Justice S.Vaidyanathan of the Madras High Court made two sweeping and strong observations. One was damning Christians and educational institutions run by them and the other about women who complain of sexual violence against them.
A case was filed by a faculty member against a Christian educational institution to quash a notice issued by the college against him in a sexual harassment complaint. The judge found that the college had held a proper inquiry and that there was no legal ground to interfere with the disciplinary action taken by the college.
The judge at para 31 of the order said, “Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.”(emphasis in original)
The Judge thereafter proceeded to record his personal opinion, while passing orders in W.P.No.15145/2019.
“32. Before parting with the judgment, this Court feels it appropriate to point out that Christian missionaries are always on the source of attack in one way or the other and in the present era, there are several accusations against them for indulging in compulsory conversion of people of other religions into Christianity. Now, there is a general feeling amongst the parents of students, especially female students that co-educational study in Christian institutions is highly unsafe for the future of their children and though they impart good education, the preach of morality will be a million dollar question. As long as a religion is practiced in streets in lieu of its worship places, like Temple, Mosque, Church, etc., such devastation, as in the present case, does occur and will be mushrooming.
The last transgression occurred because once the suit before the court is decided, the judge ought not to use the judicial pulpit for pronouncing such unconstitutional personal views that carry the weight of a judicial order and are likely to influence an ordinary person.
33. This Court do not want to go into the question of who is at fault in the present case?, but at the same time, it has become imperative for this Court to indicate that several enactments were brought into force for safeguarding the interest of Women and we have to ask a question for ourselves as to whether those laws are invoked by women with genuine reasons.
34. Certain laws, which are in existence for easy access to women, lend itself to easy misuse that women will find it hard to resist the temptation to “teach a lesson” to the male members and will file frivolous and false cases. ……
35. This is the right time for the Government to think of suitable amendment in those laws in order to prevent its misuse so as to safeguard the interest of the innocent masculinity too.”
The observations of the judge on both the subjects amount to the transgression of judicial discipline because once a case is decided, a judge ceases to have jurisdiction to express an opinion on issues that did not arise in the case.
The judgement received wide publicity, news reports on TV channels and social media.
Media reported on statements issued by Tamil Nadu Bishops Council, Tamil Nadu Latin Bishops Council, Indian Christian Association of Tamil Nadu, and All India Democratic Women’s Association, all of whom called for the withdrawal of remarks in the said order.
Sharp communal comments were made on social media and national news media websites after this order.
The National Minorities Commission also issued a statement that the observations were not appropriate and ought to be withdrawn.
Sixty-four members of the bar signed a representation to Justice Vaidyanathan objecting to his observations and that they amounted to
(1) Propagation of communal hatred.
(2) Amounted to judicial/gender bias
(3) Abuse of office.
The last transgression occurred because once the suit before the court is decided, the judge ought not to use the judicial pulpit for pronouncing such unconstitutional personal views that carry the weight of a judicial order and are likely to influence an ordinary person.
In their defense, they stated that the Padayatra was inspired by the father of the nation Mahatma Gandhi and the commitment to secular values.
A request was made to the judge to delete the paragraph mentioned above and to recuse himself from deciding such issues to preserve the appearance of impartiality. The representation was also submitted to the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court with a request that cases concerning such issues should not be posted before him.
After the representation, the judge deleted the objectionable paragraphs on August 22, 2019.
On October 2, 2019, the day of Gandhi Jayanti, more than 200 lawyers, including those who wrote the letter, once again held a silent Padayatra the High Court for peace and harmony, in an atmosphere vitiated by discrimination against minorities.
They were called by the Chief Justice of the High Court to explain their behaviour.
In their defense, they stated that the Padayatra was inspired by the father of the nation Mahatma Gandhi and the commitment to secular values. And, they had not disrupted any court proceedings and were actually carrying out their Fundamental Duties in reading the Preamble to the Constitution of India, reminding their colleagues of the values of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.
Contempt proceedings against lawyers
Advocate R. Soundarajan filed a Contempt Petition (No 15/2019) under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act before the Advocate General for consent to initiate Criminal Contempt against the lawyers who had signed the representation. The signatories included Senior Advocate R.Vaigai and Advocates Anna Mathew, Sudha Ramalingam, A.Arulmozhi, Balan Haridas and 18 others. After the Advocate General issued a notice, a detailed reply was filed by the respondent Advocates.
The case generated heated criticism and debate on both social media and news media soon after the order was passed by the judge. This vindicated the lawyers accused of contempt of court and shows that their action has only enhanced the image of the judiciary.
The respondents had submitted that fair criticism made bonafide cannot constitute contempt. They relied upon Section 13(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act that prohibits punishment for any act for which truth is a valid defence and if the act is in the public interest and bonafide.
The case generated heated criticism and debate on both social media and news media soon after the order was passed by the judge. This vindicated the lawyers accused of contempt of court and shows that their action has only enhanced the image of the judiciary.
The proceedings are pending.
We, at The Leaflet, salute the members of the Bar who showed exemplary courage in writing the representation which led to the expunging of the impugned paras in the judgment, even at the risk of facing contempt.
They demonstrated a commitment not only to secularism but also to gender justice paving a way for women to feel a sense of comfort in invoking legal remedies without being labelled as people who “misuse the law”.
We admire their commitment to the rule of law and the power of the collective. They demonstrate the commitment to the Constitution expected of all lawyers inside and outside the court. They stand with the others in this report as an inspiration and demonstrate the role of lawyers in a democratic society.
