CHENNAI: Provision of criminal contempt against unruly litigants grants the court the power of a giant. But should the court act like a giant, overreacting to stray events that can be well ignored? Asking itself this question, Madras high court desisted from initiating contempt action against an unruly litigant, Ashok Surana, who boasted that he had exhibited similar behaviour and made similar allegations against at least 13 judges. On February 8, he shouted abuses and threw tantrums, besides daring the court of Justice N Seshasayee to initiate criminal contempt action against him.
Justice Seshasayee, however, saw it as a tactic to prolong the case, divert the court’s attention and side-track the property partition proceedings before him. He said: “If the HC as an institution has built its repute through the quality of its service to the people, and enjoys abundant public confidence in its reserve to sustain its existential relevance, then a stray utterance of a litigant can hardly shake it up. ” He ordered CISF personnel to remove Surana from the HC and directed an advocate commissioner to auction the property without wasting any further time. The case revolves around one family property, which needs to be partitioned into four parts for as many brothers. Though a court had appointed an advocate commissioner many years ago, the re port submitted by the court officer pointed out that the property was indivisible, and that one of the heirs had to buy it out from others. Auction was choice of other brothers as they needed money. But, Surana initially said he would buy it for Rs 5 crore, but did not honour his offer. In order to stall the auction, he kept levelling allegations against judges and getting the case deferred. Justice Seshasayee said: “It, however, needs to be realised that it (contempt power) is not an aspect of entitlement but an aspect of empowerment of court. ”
Justice Seshasayee, however, saw it as a tactic to prolong the case, divert the court’s attention and side-track the property partition proceedings before him. He said: “If the HC as an institution has built its repute through the quality of its service to the people, and enjoys abundant public confidence in its reserve to sustain its existential relevance, then a stray utterance of a litigant can hardly shake it up. ” He ordered CISF personnel to remove Surana from the HC and directed an advocate commissioner to auction the property without wasting any further time. The case revolves around one family property, which needs to be partitioned into four parts for as many brothers. Though a court had appointed an advocate commissioner many years ago, the re port submitted by the court officer pointed out that the property was indivisible, and that one of the heirs had to buy it out from others. Auction was choice of other brothers as they needed money. But, Surana initially said he would buy it for Rs 5 crore, but did not honour his offer. In order to stall the auction, he kept levelling allegations against judges and getting the case deferred. Justice Seshasayee said: “It, however, needs to be realised that it (contempt power) is not an aspect of entitlement but an aspect of empowerment of court. ”
