Gurumurthy served contempt notices

Advocate-General Vijay Narayan has issued notices to Thuglak’s Editor S. Gurumurthy on two functions filed earlier than him in search of consent to provoke felony contempt of courtroom proceedings in opposition to him for his feedback concerning the judiciary on the Tamil journal’s annual meet with its readers on January 14.

The notices have been issued on the functions filed by Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam chief S. Doraisamy and advocate S. Kumaradevan in search of the Advocate-General’s consent beneath Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The object of the Section was to keep away from submitting of frivolous felony contempt petitions within the High Court.

After assigning numbers to the 2 petitions, the Advocate-General has issued particular person notices to Mr. Gurumurthy asking him to look both in individual or by means of his counsel on February 16 for an in depth listening to. The Advocate-General has additionally requested the primary applicant’s counsel V. Elangovan and the second applicant to attend the listening to.

Plea for suo motu motion

Yet one other lawyer P. Pugalenthi had filed a felony contempt of courtroom petition within the High Court in opposition to the Editor. However, his counsel M. Radhakrishnan selected to not search the Advocate-General’s consent by relying upon a Supreme Court ruling and as a substitute impressed upon the courtroom the necessity to provoke the contempt proceedings suo motu.

Mr. Gurumoorthy made the contentious remarks whereas answering a query from one of many readers on the judicial delay in deciding corruption circumstances. He stated the delay was as a result of Supreme Court judges get appointed by politicians and that they get appointed solely by beseeching one individual or the opposite and by holding on to their ft. However, the following day, he expressed remorse for the remarks and clarified that his intent was to say how some candidates for judges for even the best courtroom go and beseech politicians for assist. “But in the spur and heat of the moment, I mentioned judges instead of candidates,” he stated in an announcement.

Further, clarifying that the remarks have been fully unintended, he stated: “I may add that the statement was in the course of my extempore reply to a provocative question and not in any deliberate article or writing which would show my intent.”