CHENNAI: The Madras High Court today slammed authorities for not taking action against those who posted comments against Chief Justice Indira Banerjee on an order delivered by her on pleas challenging the disqualification of 18 AIADMK MLAs loyal to sidelined leader T T V Dhinakaran.
A division bench comprising Justice N Kirubakaran and Justice R Pongiappan, asked the Additional Advocate General (AAG) what action had been taken against those who posted remarks against the chief justice in the social media.
The bench posed the question on a plea seeking direction to authorities to take action against some reported advocates, who trespassed into a clinic and threatened a doctor.
Justice N Kirubakaran said no action was taken in this case against the offenders.
It was only after the intervention of the court that a case was registered, he said.
No action was initiated against those who posted comments in the social media against judges or judiciary, the bench said.
"If such comments were posted against chief minister, ministers of the state or against higher official you may have immediately suo motu taken action," Justice Kirubakaran told the AAG.
The bench posted the matter to June 25 after directing the AAG to submit a report about the action taken against those who posted the comments.
In the keenly awaited judgement, the chief justice had upheld the September 18 last order of Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker P Dhanapal disqualifying the MLAs, while Justice M Sundar disagreed with her and struck it down.
In his plea, the doctor had alleged that no action was taken against those who reportedly ransacked his clinic.
The bench after going through the FIR observed that though the complaint was registered, no action was taken and the petitioner was constrained to approach the court.
The court had earlier asked the police to produce the doctor in court as it feared for his safety.
The court had also asked the petitioner how he could claim the tenancy when he was not the tenant and asked him to vacate the first and second floors of the house.
The bench today said "Merely because the persons claiming themselves to be "advocates" are involved, they cannot be above law."
Lawyers, as the nomenclature shows, are supposed to follow the law and they have to safeguard the law and the rights of the citizens.
However, "the so-called advocates", hand in glove with the police commit offences including taking possession of property by force by donning the black gown as a shield.
If the police and the 'so-called lawyers' come together, it would go against the interest of the society.
It is shameful to note that these so-called advocates play the role of "paid goondas (hooligans)," the bench said.
The bench recorded the undertaking given by the petitioner that he would vacate the residential portion by June 24.
The petitioner sought three months for vacating the clinic.
The court directed the registry to transfer the entire file with regarding to anticipatory bail petitions filed by the house owner before it and posted the matter for further hearing to June 25.