HC proposes contempt proceedings against Law University Registrar
CHENNAI, FEBRUARY 13, 2019 00:00 IST
Directs Police Commissioner to serve notice on her
The Madras High Court on Tuesday ordered serving of notice on Jayanthi Krishnamoorthy, Registrar (in-charge), Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, through the Commisioner of Police, directing her to appear before the court on February 18 to explain why she should not be subjected to contempt of court proceedings.
A Division Bench of Justices K.K. Sasidharan and P.D. Audikesavalu passed the order after taking strong exception to “highly intemperate” language used by her against Justice S.M. Subramaniam of the court while seeking the leave of the Bench to prefer a writ appeal against an interim order passed by him on February 1.
When a 2015 writ petition filed by a professor of the university, D. Shankar, seeking a direction to then Vice-Chancellor P. Vanangamudi to reinstate him as the Registrar came up for hearing before Justice Subramaniam recently, he decided to weed out all unqualified faculty members who were not appointed through proper channel. Since Mr. Vanangamudi accused the incumbent Vice-Chancellor T.S.N. Sastry also of not possessing the requisite qualifications, the judge impleaded the latter also in his personal capacity as a respondent to the writ petition apart from 32 others and directed all of them to file affidavits explaining the qualifications possessed by them.
Permission sought
Assailing the judge’s decision to implead the Vice-Chancellor too, the university had sought the leave of the Bench to file an appeal. In an affidavit filed in support of the leave petition, Ms. Krishnamoorthy stated that the single judge was acting according to his “whims and caprice by issuing a continuous mandamus beyond the subject matter of the writ petition.”
‘Inappropriate’
Observing that it was “highly inappropriate” on the part of a responsible officer such as Registrar (in-charge) to make such an imputation against a learned judge of the court, the Bench said such a comment made against him in the grounds to seek leave was not only disrespectful but also undermines the dignity and status of the chartered High Court. Making it clear that the Registrar should explain why action should not be taken against her under Article 215 (power of the High Court to punish for contempt) of the Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971, the judges directed the Police Commissioner to serve notice on the Registrar at the earliest and forward the acknowledgement by February 15.
CHENNAI, FEBRUARY 13, 2019 00:00 IST
Directs Police Commissioner to serve notice on her
The Madras High Court on Tuesday ordered serving of notice on Jayanthi Krishnamoorthy, Registrar (in-charge), Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, through the Commisioner of Police, directing her to appear before the court on February 18 to explain why she should not be subjected to contempt of court proceedings.
A Division Bench of Justices K.K. Sasidharan and P.D. Audikesavalu passed the order after taking strong exception to “highly intemperate” language used by her against Justice S.M. Subramaniam of the court while seeking the leave of the Bench to prefer a writ appeal against an interim order passed by him on February 1.
When a 2015 writ petition filed by a professor of the university, D. Shankar, seeking a direction to then Vice-Chancellor P. Vanangamudi to reinstate him as the Registrar came up for hearing before Justice Subramaniam recently, he decided to weed out all unqualified faculty members who were not appointed through proper channel. Since Mr. Vanangamudi accused the incumbent Vice-Chancellor T.S.N. Sastry also of not possessing the requisite qualifications, the judge impleaded the latter also in his personal capacity as a respondent to the writ petition apart from 32 others and directed all of them to file affidavits explaining the qualifications possessed by them.
Permission sought
Assailing the judge’s decision to implead the Vice-Chancellor too, the university had sought the leave of the Bench to file an appeal. In an affidavit filed in support of the leave petition, Ms. Krishnamoorthy stated that the single judge was acting according to his “whims and caprice by issuing a continuous mandamus beyond the subject matter of the writ petition.”
‘Inappropriate’
Observing that it was “highly inappropriate” on the part of a responsible officer such as Registrar (in-charge) to make such an imputation against a learned judge of the court, the Bench said such a comment made against him in the grounds to seek leave was not only disrespectful but also undermines the dignity and status of the chartered High Court. Making it clear that the Registrar should explain why action should not be taken against her under Article 215 (power of the High Court to punish for contempt) of the Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971, the judges directed the Police Commissioner to serve notice on the Registrar at the earliest and forward the acknowledgement by February 15.
No comments:
Post a Comment