P R ADIKESAVAN versus THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS AND ANOTHER on 23 May 2022

1. The appeal arises from the judgment dated 25 March 2022 of aDivision Bench of the Madras High Court convicting appellant underSection 2(c)(iii) read with Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act1971 and sentencing him two weeks of simple imprisonment.

2. Insolvency proceedings were initiated against the appellant underDthe provisions of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act 1909. On 12March 2021, a Single Judge of the Madras High Court issued a non-bailable warrant seeking the presence of the appellant on 26 March2021. On 31 March 2021, when a team of the police tried to execute thewarrant, the appellant and fifty other advocates gheraoed the police and prevented them from executing the order. The Deputy Commissioner ofEPolice brought the incident to the notice of the Registrar General of theMadras High Court by a letter dated 13 April 2021. On perusing thevideo clippings of the incident the Single Judge of the Madras High Courtby an order dated 14 July 2021, initiated contempt proceedings againstthe appellant under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1926. TheForder of the Single judge is extracted below:

“4.This Court has also seen the entire footage starting from thetime the Police informed the respondent about the orders ofthis Court and thereafter, how the respondent and one of hisAdvocate friend had started questioning the Police PersonnelGand the respondent has not paid heed to the Inspector ofPolice’s statement that he is only executing the orders ofthis Court. The Police report would also state that therespondent’s counsel Mr. Balasubramaniam had arrived andhe also started abusing the Police. The video footage showshis presence. Thereafter, the scene has totally turned ugly H

H

and in one footage, I saw two Advocates trying to pull out aPolice Officer using abusive and unparliamentary words. Theentire scene is enacted on the public road just outside theCourt premises in full public view. This is nothing butobstructing the administration of Justice. The act becomesall the more contumacious as the respondent and the otherswho are members of the noble profession have committedthis act. They are bound to respect not only the dignity ofthis Court but also the orders of this Court.

5. The respondent who was fully aware of the pendency of theproceedings had deliberately not appeared before this Courtconstraining the Court to issue the Non-Bailable Warrant. Aprima facie case of Contempt is made out against therespondent and Mr. Balasubramanian, Advocate forobstructing the Police Officials from executing the orders ofthis Court. This Court takes cognizance of the act of CriminalContempt committed by them.”

3. On 1 September 2021, a Division Bench of the Madras HighCourt on perusing the records found that a prima facie case has beenmade out against the appellant and issued notice. On 26 October 2021,the Court framed the following charge against the appellant:

“That, you, Mr. PR Adikesavan, Advocate and Mr.Balasubramanian, Advocate, by your aforesaid conduct, in notpermitting the execution of the Non-Bailable Warrant issued bythis Court on 31.03.2021, has interfered with the administration ofjustice and has also obstructed the administration of justice, thereby,you are charged under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of CourtsAct 1971, which is punishable under Section 12 of the Act, ibid.”

4. The proceedings were adjourned by the Division Bench on fiveoccasions at the behest of the appellant.[1] The Bench finally adjournedthe case and listed it on 28 February 2022. However, the appellant filed‘sub-applications’ before the next date of hearing. The sub-applicationswere listed along with the contempt petition on 28 February 2022 beforethe Division Bench. The appellant submitted that he had filed sub-applications and made a representation to the Chief Justice of the Madras 1 The matter was adjourned on 23.11.2021, 30.11.2021, 21.12.2021, 24.1.2022, and 14.2.2022.

2 (2009) 8 SCC 106.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AHigh Court seeking the recusal of one of the Judges of the DivisionBench.

5. The appellant filed sub-applications seeking the issuance ofsummons to the Single Judge for examining her as a witness in this caseand another application for one of the judges on the Division Bench toBrecuse from the hearing. The appellant took back the applications fromthe Registry and did not re-present them. By the impugned judgmentdated 25 March 2022, the appellant was held guilty of contempt andwas sentenced to undergo two weeks of simple imprisonment and wasdirected to pay a fine of Rs 2000. The appellant was also barred frompractising as an Advocate in the Madras High Court for one year. TheCCourt observed that on the video clipping shows that the police did notuse physical force against the appellant and that it was the battery oflawyers who surrounded the police officials and abused them. TheDivision Bench observed that the appellant attempted to evade serviceof the non-bailable warrant though he :D

“8…. Could have just accompanied the police along with hisadvocates to the police station where after making necessary entryin the General Diary in the nearby Flower Bazaar Police Station,he would have been produced before PTAJ before whom he couldhave pleaded for release. Instead, Adikesavan has played fraudEon Balasubramanian by not disclosing the truth and had collectedhuge number of advocates to prevent the police from performingtheir duty of executing the lawful order of the Court. To be noted,whether PTAJ was correct in issuing the non-bailable warrant ornot is a question which could have been decided by the policeofficer, for, he is simply required to execute all lawful orders issuedFby the Court.”

6. The appellant moved this Court in an appeal under Section 19of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 read with Rule XX of the SupremeCourt Rules 2013. Mr K K Mani, learned senior counsel has urged thatthe appellant has submitted an apology and this should be accepted.G

7. The behaviour and conduct of the appellant, who is a memberof the Bar has been thoroughly contemptuous. There was a clear attemptto obstruct the process of justice when the non-bailable warrant wassought to be served on him by the competent police officials, which hasbeen recorded in the video footage. The appellant is complicit in theHobstruction of justice.

P R ADIKESAVAN v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OFMADRAS AND ANOTHER [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

8. That apart, wanton allegations have been levelled against theSingle Judge of the Madras High Court who issued the non-bailablewarrant. Further, a recusal was sought of one of the Judges hearing theproceedings thereafter on thoroughly improper grounds. Fiveadjournments were sought by the appellant before the Madras HighCourt, delaying the conclusion of the proceedings only to later file sub-applications imputing allegations against two Judges of the Madras HighCourt. The appellant later also took back the sub-applications from theregistry and did not re-present them. The appellant has no respect forthe administration of justice. The finding of contempt, as well as thesentence cannot be regarded as disproportionate. Similarly, the debarmentfrom practicing for a period of one year is in accordance with the judgmentof this Court in R.K. Anand vs Registrar, Delhi High Court[2].

9. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, ifany, stand disposed of.

Ankit Gyan

Appeal dismissed.

(Assisted by : Rahul Rathi, LCRA)

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H