Madras High Court convicts for contempt a person for filing PILs claiming to be trustee of some temples sentences him to undergo four weeks imprisonment
A Division Bench of Madras High Court has convicted a person claiming to be a trustee of various temples and in the process filing public interest litigations. The court has sentenced to undergo four weeks simple imprisonment for each charge and pay a fine of Rs.2,000 for each charge, in default to undergo two weeks simple imprisonment.
The case pertains to a man named A. Radhakrishnan, who according to the order claimed himself to be the Trustee of some temples, on the strength of which, used to address representations to various Departments alleging that the lands of those temples have been encroached, with a prayer for removal of such encroachments and following them up by filing public interest litigations in the High Court against only the Government officials without including the alleged encroachers. The order also records that Radhakrishnan had addressed letters to the Chief Justice of Madras, representing himself to be the trustee of Arulmigu Kothandarama Swamy Temple in Salem and asking for action to be taken against persons encroaching the lands of the temple. The representation was forwarded by the Private Secretary to the Chief Justice, to the District Collector, Salem, for necessary action. On receiving a copy of the forwarding letter from the Chief Justice's secretariat, Radhakrishnan would approach the authorities and make it appear as if the High Court is monitoring the matter.
The court also noted that criminal charges had been filed against Radhakrishnan by police stations at various jurisdictions. The court thus divided the contemptuous act committed by him under various heads and analysed the same. The first charge against Radakrishnan was that he had given his address as Allikuttai Post, Salem District, whereas his address in the Aadhar Card is different. Radhakrishnan defended this saying that his present address and the address he had given are proximate to each other and since he was born in Allikuttai Village, he has given that as his address. The court held that “Giving an address in the affidavit knowing full well that it is not the correct one, per se, amounts to criminal contempt, because, the respondent does not want to be reached by the Court and wants to remain incognito..”
The second charge against Radhakrishnan was that without being a Trustee of Arulmigu Sugavaneswarar Thirukoil, the respondent has filed five public interest litigations claiming himself to be the Trustee of the said temple. Radhakrishnan defended the same saying that he was b a person who who sponsors poojas and feeding in the temple and hence he had in the writ petition claimed that he was trustee. The court held that the Trustee is in a higher position than a mere Kattalaidharar, because, the Trustee holds an office, whereas, a Kattalaidharar is merely a donor. When a Trustee of a temple comes to the High Court and files a public interest litigation alleging that some lands of the temple have been encroached, naturally, the High Court would give more weight to his assertion than the assertion of a mere donor.
The court concluded that “his acts of giving false information would definitely interfere with the administration of justice and would fall within the expression “the administration of justice in any other manner” in Section2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act.” The court further noted that very recently, the respondent had filed a public interest litigation arraying as many as 44 Government officials as respondents and the same was withdrawn before a Division Bench of this Court on 12.10.2021, presumably on the ground that the Division Bench was not inclined to entertain it.
The court while holding him guilty noted that “On a conspectus of the facts obtaining in this case, the respondent appears to be an interloper who has been using the judicial process for blackmailing and causing annoyance to ordinary people in the guise of being a Good Samaritan. Hence, no sympathy can be shown to him.”
Case title: Sivakumar Vs Radhakrishnan