Initiate criminal contempt of court proceedings against DMK leader R.S. Bharathi: plea in Madras High Court

Petitioners urge Madras HC to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against DMK organising secretary R.S. Bharathi for accusing Justice N. Anand Venkatesh of adopting "pick and choose policy" in suo motu revision of acquittal/discharge of legislators from disproportionate assets cases. Litigants allege Bharathi's comments caused damage to credibility of judiciary and require strict action under Contempt of Courts Act.

A petition has been filed in the Madras High Court urging the court to initiate criminal contempt of court proceedings against DMK organising secretary R.S. Bharathi for having accused Justice N. Anand Venkatesh of adopting “a pick and choose policy” while taking up suo motu revision against the acquittal/discharge of legislators from disproportionate assets cases.

Appearing before the first Division Bench of Chief Justice S.V. Gangapurwala and Justice P.D. Audikesavalu, advocate P. Vijendran requested an urgent hearing of the petition. The judges asked him to give a written request to the Registrar (Judicial) and said it would be listed in a week if the papers were in order. A. Shankar alias ‘Savukku’ Shankar and law student G. Karthi had filed the petition jointly.

Filing an affidavit in support of their case, the litigants said, Justice Venkatesh had rightly taken up, suo motu, a revision of the acquittal and discharge of sitting as well as former Ministers and that every law-abiding citizen, interested in upholding the rule of law, would appreciate the bold decision of the High Court in having taken suo motu notice of the way in which the criminal justice system had been subverted.

However, Mr. Bharathi, while addressing the press on August 24, 2023, had accused the judge of not only adopting a ‘pick and choose policy’ in initiating the suo motu action but had also attributed malafide intentions to the judge, the litigants said and contended that the DMK leader’s comments had caused damage to the credibility of judiciary in the eyes of the public. This required strict action against him under the Contempt of Courts Act, they claimed.