Lawyer uses filthy language in ‘virtual court’, fined

Lawyer uses filthy language in ‘virtual court’, fined

A.Subramani@timesgroup.com

Chennai:11.06.2020

Call it the perils of virtual courts. A lawyer of 30-year Bar experience uttered a filthy phrase in Tamil, instinctively on seeing a rashly driven car on road, forgetting the fact that he was still in the middle of his argument in a virtual court. He was pulled up by the judge for it and fined, too.

G Samwell Rajendran was arguing a bail case from near a road on Monday, when he spotted a dangerously driven car whizzing past. He exclaimed, using a filthy phrase in Tamil, as to how reckless the driver was. That he uttered it in virtual court while the judge and other court employees were watching, was the offence.

Irked by the ‘filthy, offensive and intimidatory’ words, the principal district and sessions judge of Thoothukudi, N Logeswaran, initiated summary contempt proceedings against the lawyer and issued him a show-cause notice. On Tuesday, not satisfied by the explanation offered by the lawyer, the court slapped ₹200 as fine for causing ‘intentional interruption to judicial proceedings.’ The fine is to be paid by June 10.

“This court is of the view that even an uneducated village man will not utter the filthy language in a public place... This court finds that the accused has insulted the principal district judge sitting in the judicial proceedings during working hours, and committed an offence under Section 228 (intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting in judicial proceedings) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),” said sessions judge Logeswaran.

The order was communicated to Rajendran through email and to his Whatsapp number, and it will be uploaded to the official website of the district court.

The judge, who himself lodged the complaint, mentioned how the prosecutor, woman stenographer, protocol officer and a couple of other court officials who were present in the virtual court and witnessed the ugly incident too gave a ‘written report’ to the judge about the incident.

In order to pre-empt any penal action, Rajendran wrote to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry explaining the incident. It, however, did not help, as the court concluded that the remarks were an ‘intentional insult in the course of judicial proceedings.’

OBJECTION OVERRULED: G Samwell Rajendran, who has 30 years of law practice behind him, uttered a filthy phrase in Tamil when a car sped past him, forgetting the fact that he was in an ongoing virtual hearing. His explanations cut little ice with the judge