Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, May 04, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version
Google



Tamil Nadu
Nxg

News: ePaper | Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous | Engagements |
Advts:
Retail Plus | Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary |



Tamil Nadu Printer Friendly Page   Send this Article to a Friend

High Court rejects plea against magistrate

K.T. Sangameswaran

CHENNAI: A litigant has no right to seek a direction to restrain a judicial officer from discharging his judicial function. If such a practice is encouraged, every litigant, immediately after an order is passed against his interest, will approach the higher forum arraying the judicial officer also as one of the parties, and start harassing, intimidating and terrorising him, which will affect the independence of the judiciary, the Madras High Court has said.

Justice M. Jeyapaul rejected as not maintainable a petition filed by D. Ramagopal under sections 482 (Saving of inherent powers of High Court) and 483 (Duty of High Court to exercise continuous superintendence over courts of Judicial Magistrates) Cr.P.C. seeking to call for records in a case before II Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), Egmore, and restrain the magistrate, R. Pongiyappan, from functioning in his present position.

Counsel for petitioner highlighted the lapses by the magistrate and contended that the magistrate had committed judicial impropriety and intellectual dishonesty. Such a magistrate should not be permitted to function any more as II MM.

The High Court had ample powers to restrain such a judicial officer from functioning as such. Amicus curiae, B. Sriramulu, senior counsel, submitted that ample protection was there for judges under the Judges (Protection) Act. No proceedings could be initiated against a Judge for the discharge of his official or judicial duty or function.

Government Advocate (criminal side) A. Saravanan said no judicial officer could be terrorised for the judicial function he had discharged by impleading him in criminal proceedings.

Mr. Justice Jeyapaul said the supervisory power of the High Court could not be invoked by a litigant to restrain a judicial officer from discharging his function.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail



Tamil Nadu

News: ePaper | Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous | Engagements |
Advts:
Retail Plus | Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary | Updates: Breaking News |




News Update



The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription
Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Home |

Copyright © 2008, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu