Read Time: 06 minutes

The Madras High Court recently sentenced a litigant under the Contempt of Courts Act for misleading the court.

A bench of Justices P. N Prakash and AA Nakkiran found the litigant guilty of mainly four charges arising out of several acts of criminal contempt and were of the opinion that no sympathy could be shown to him. The bench said,

“...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.”

The litigant was habitually claiming himself to be a trustee of some temples in Salem District, based on which he used to represent various departments making allegations of encroachment. He put forward these with the public interest litigation (PIL) petitions in the High Court.

The PILs were against only the Government officials without including the alleged encroachers and praying for writs of mandamus to the authorities for the removal of the alleged encroachments.

The litigant then approached the authorities and made it appear as if the High Court was monitoring the matters. The intelligence gathered by the police showed that the litigant used to collect money by giving false promises to old people that he would get them pension amount.

On finding the litigant guilty of filing petitions giving false addresses, Court observed that when a person files an affidavit, especially in PIL, they are required to disclose true details.

“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”, said Court.

Court further found the litigant guilty of filing PILs without being a trustee of a temple and asking for certain directions. The litigant, in his affidavits filed before the court, had stated that he was a trustee, given that he was a Kattalaidharar (person who sponsors poojas or free distribution of food) of the temple.

Court stated that a trustee is in a higher position than a mere Kattalaidharar because the trustee holds an office whereas, a Kattalaidharar is merely a donor. Therefore, Court said, “….the respondent has misled this Court by calling himself as a Trustee when actually he was not one. Hence, he is found guilty of the second charge.”

Further, Court observed that the acts of giving false information would definitely interfere with the administration of justice and fall within the expression “the administration of justice in any other manner” under the Contempt of Courts Act.

Conclusively, tCourt held the litigant guilty, and sentenced him to four weeks of imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000. However, the court suspended the sentence for eight weeks, in case the litigant planned to challenge the High Court’s order before the Supreme Court.

Case Title: Sivakumar v. A Radhakrishnan