Madras high court summons advocate over remarks against judge
Madras high court
, a division bench called the lawyer and said his conduct prima facie constituted contempt of court.
On Thursday, a bench of Justice G R Swaminathan and Justice K Rajasekar while hearing an appeal took note of a case wherein Vanchinathan was counsel and observed that since improper motive was being attributed to one of the judges, it became necessary to summon Vanchinathan to appear in person before the court at 1.15pm.
In compliance of the summons issued by the registry, Vanchinathan appeared before the court.
You Can Also Check:
Chennai AQI
|
Weather in Chennai
|
Bank Holidays in Chennai
|
Public Holidays in Chennai
When the judges posed a query to Vanchinathan and asked him whether he still stood by the allegations, he replied that he would answer the question if the query is made in writing. The judges directed the registry to serve the questionnaire to Vanchinathan to enable him to respond to a query as to whether he stands by his imputation against Justice Swaminathan in the discharge of his judicial duties.
The bench directed Vanchinathan to appear in person before the court at 1.15pm on Monday.
The judges also observed that the conduct of Vanchinathan prima facie constituted criminal contempt of court.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
a minute ago
- The Hindu
13 Allahabad High Court judges urge Chief Justice to not follow Supreme Court's directive
Three days after the Supreme Court issued a scathing order barring an Allahabad High Court judge from hearing criminal cases until his retirement, several judges of the High Court have come out in support of their fellow judge opposing the implementation of the apex court's directive. Thirteen judges of the Allahabad High Court have written to Chief Justice Arun Bhansali, requesting the convening of a Full Court meeting and urging that the apex court's order removing Justice Prashant Kumar from the criminal roster not be implemented. The letter was circulated on Thursday (August 7, 2025), even as the Supreme Court relisted the case in which it made the remarks against Justice Kumar for allowing criminal proceedings in a civil dispute case. 'The Full Court resolves that direction made in para 24 to 26 in the subject order dated August 4, 2025 is not to be complied with as the Supreme Court does not have administrative superintendence over the High Courts,' the letter said. The High Court judges also recorded their 'anguish in respect of tone and tenor of said order'. On August 4, 2025, a Supreme Court Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan had reprimanded Justice Kumar for 'cutting a sorry figure for himself' and making 'a mockery of justice'. The apex court had taken stern exception to Justice Kumar finding nothing wrong in a litigant filing a criminal case against a buyer in a purely civil dispute over an unpaid balance of money in a sale transaction. The Bench said the High Court judge had found nothing wrong in allowing a criminal case for 'criminal breach of trust' registered in the civil dispute. 'We are at our wits' end to understand what is wrong with the Indian judiciary at the level of the High Court. At times we are left wondering whether such orders are passed on some extraneous considerations or it is sheer ignorance of law. Whatever it be, passing of such absurd and erroneous orders is something unpardonable,' the Bench said. The Indian legal system has been witnessing a troubling trend of the increasing misuse of criminal law in matters that are fundamentally civil in nature. This tendency has been seen in civil disputes, such as money recovery, cheque bounce case, contractual disagreements, inheritance, property partitions, commercial transactions and others. In April this year, then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna came down heavily on the Uttar Pradesh government over the growing trend of ordinary civil disputes being converted into criminal cases. His remarks came during the hearing of an appeal filed by two individuals facing a cheque bounce case, who were also slapped with criminal charges, including breach of trust, intimidation, and criminal conspiracy.
New Indian Express
31 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
13 Allahabad HC judges urge Chief Justice to defy SC order, barring colleague from hearing criminal cases
LUCKNOW: In an unprecedented move, 13 judges of the Allahabad High Court have taken strong exception to the observations made by a division bench of the Supreme Court concerning a sitting judge of the High Court. In a letter dated August 7, 2025, addressed to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, the judges urged the convening of a full court meeting to defy the Supreme Court's August 4 order, which stripped Justice Prashant Kumar of his criminal roster until his retirement. The judges argued that the Supreme Court lacks administrative superintendence over High Courts and, therefore, the directions in paragraphs 24 to 26 of the apex court's order—pertaining to Justice Kumar—should not be complied with. They further called upon the full court to formally record its displeasure regarding the tone and tenor of the Supreme Court's remarks. A full court meeting, typically reserved for matters of significant legal or constitutional importance, involves the presence of all or a substantial number of the court's judges. The Supreme Court's division bench, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, had sharply criticized an order passed by Justice Prashant Kumar, in which he directed the Allahabad High Court Chief Justice to assign him to a division bench alongside a senior judge. The apex court also mandated that no criminal cases be allotted to Justice Kumar henceforth. The letter, initiated by Justice Arindam Sinha in his individual capacity, expressed shock and dismay over the Supreme Court's observations. It stated that the remarks against Justice Kumar violated the principles established by the Supreme Court itself in Amar Pal Singh v. State of UP (2012), which emphasized judicial restraint when commenting on officers unable to defend themselves. The letter further defended Justice Kumar's order, citing precedents set by the Supreme Court in Lee Kun Hee v. State of UP and Sayed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. State (Delhi Administration). Additionally, the judges objected to the Supreme Court's suggestion that Justice Kumar's order might have been influenced by "extraneous considerations" or "sheer ignorance," calling the insinuations unfounded and baseless. The letter, circulated under Chapter III, Rule 9 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, garnered the signatures of 12 other judges, underscoring the collective discontent within the High Court over the Supreme Court's intervention.
Indian Express
31 minutes ago
- Indian Express
ED has to act lawfully, not like crooks: Supreme Court
While discussing the shortcomings and limitations of the ED which contended that crooks are increasingly becoming smarter posing challenges to investigators, the Supreme Court Thursday said that still 'you can't act like a crook. You have to act within the four corners of the law'. 'There is a difference between law enforcing and law violating…,' Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, who was part of a three-judge bench, told Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the ED. The bench, presided by Justice Surya Kant and also comprising Justice N K Singh, was hearing review petitions against the 2022 judgment in the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case in which the SC upheld the agency's powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Justice Bhuyan said, 'I had observed in one court proceedings and it has come true in the statement made by the minister in the floor of the Parliament, you have registered about 5,000- plus ECIRs, conviction is less than 10% from 2015 to 2025. Therefore we are insisting that you improve your investigation, improve your witnesses.' '… If at the end of 5-6 years, they are put into custody, and end up in acquittal, who will pay…? …We are also equally concerned for the image of ED,' he said. Raju said, 'Wherever there are influential accused… a battery of lawyers will go on filing one application after the other…the Investigating Officer has to run around in courts…The problem is they don't allow the trial to commence. Raju said 'everybody is concerned' about the ED's image, adding, 'there's no acquittal'. Echoing the agency's concerns, Justice Kant said, 'I have got details of one case where 47 applications (were filed) and the magistrate has disposed of those applications with every order running into 10-15 pages. And he said 'I have time for no other work left'. One application I hear for two days, by the time I pass an order, another comes.' 'Somebody will have to hit them very hard. That's the only way,' he added. Raju said, 'The situation has changed. Crooks have become very smart… tech savvy. So it will be very hazardous if we are required to give them (material) which would disclose our investigation at a very nascent stage. Of course at the time of complaint, we will give them everything, we are bound to give them everything.' 'Suppose you arrest a person and the main persons are in the British Virgin Islands or Cayman Islands, you can't touch them. The investigation gets delayed, you can't get material… what do we do? We are handicapped. An investigator is no match for a crook with a lot of wherewithal,' he said. Justice Kant said, 'crypto currency is going to pose a big challenge before you.' To a specific query about regulating crypto currency, Raju said, 'They are trying to but sometimes it's very difficult… When we regulate, crooks always find a way out.' Meanwhile making his submissions in another matter before a bench presided by CJI B R Gavai, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, said that the agency had so far recovered around Rs 23,000 crore laundered money and distributed it to the victims of financial crimes. The CJI asked him, 'What is the conviction rate?' The SG said that conviction rates are also very low in penal offences and added that the various ills plaguing the criminal justice system in the country was the key reason for this. The CJI said, 'even if they are not convicted you have been successful in sentencing them almost without a trial for years together.' The SG said, 'In some of the cases where the politicians were raided, where the cash was found, our (cash counting) machines stopped functioning because of the huge cash… we had to bring new machines'. He added that some narratives are being built on YouTube programmes when some big politicians are caught'. The CJI said, 'We do not decide matters on narratives… I don't see news channels. I see headlines in newspapers only in the morning for 10-15 minutes'. Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More
