Lawyer Chided for Offensive Remark

Censure came on review plea, filed by Muthukrishnan, on the helmet rule made mandatory by the High Court.

Published: 03rd May 2016 04:56 AM  |   Last Updated: 03rd May 2016 05:02 AM   |  A+A-

CHENNAI: An advocate of long standing with Madras High Court was chastised for describing the court of Justice N Kirubakaran as “Cat’s Paw” in connection with the helmet rule.

The 34-page order passed by Justice Kirubakaran on April 29 last began with the sentence, “Cat’s Paw is the nomenclature given to this court (by the revision petitioner R Muthukrishnan) for having passed the judgment (by Justice Kirubakaran) making helmet wearing compulsory by two wheeler riders on June 8, 2015.”

“The petitioner would charge that this court has only become a cat’s paw of the crocodile tears shedding by helmet lobbyists’ group consisting of helmet manufacturers and marketers as well as publicity oriented/personally interested in ‘helmet activists’. This contention of the petitioner is highly derogative and contemptuous in nature. The petitioner, an advocate, cannot stoop down to the level of making such allegation against this court. There is no question of this court becoming a puppet in the hands of somebody, as this court is earnestly concerned only with the safety and security of two wheeler riders and the interest of their family members by implementing Sec. 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act in letter and spirit,” the judge said.

As early as November 2015, the first Bench, presided over by Chief Justice SK Kaul, had pulled up Muthukrishnan and imposed a cost of `10,000 on him for filing a frivolous PIL on the same issue. The same bench subsequently, had initiated contempt proceedings against him and recommended to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to consider suspending him.

Continuing his tirade against Muthukrishnan, Justice Kirubakaran said that “Being an advocate, petitioner should be a role model. A lawyer is supposed to know the law. By seeking to review the order, he indirectly seeks a direction to violate Sec. 129 of the MV Act. If the order of the court is reviewed, it would amount to a direction to violate the statute. Moreover, unnecessary comtemptuous and uncharitable remarks and unwanted criticisms against the court have been made in the review petition, as well as during  arguments in open court,the Judge said and dismissed the plea.

Stay up to date on all the latest Chennai news with The New Indian Express App. Download now
(Get the news that matters from New Indian Express on WhatsApp. Click this link and hit 'Click to Subscribe'. Follow the instructions after that.)


Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp