Man held guilty of contempt of court for accusing Madras HC judges of committing ‘genocide’

CHENNAI: A man, who accused judges of Madras high court of committing “genocide” and “crime against humanity” multiple times, was on Thursday held guilty of contempt of court.

As a final opportunity, a division bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman suggested that T Ashok Surana of Mylapore in Chennai file an affidavit tendering an unconditional apology for the allegations and statements he had made against the court, its judges and judicial orders passed by them.


“The affidavit shall clearly express genuine regret and contain an undertaking that he shall not hereafter make any such allegations or statements. It is made clear that the apology shall be unconditional and reflect genuine regret. In the event the contemnor fails to file such an affidavit within the time granted, this court will proceed to impose appropriate punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, including one-month simple imprisonment, without further reference,” the court said.

The issue pertains to a suo motu contempt petition initiated by a division bench of the court in 2020 for making scandalous allegations against one of the judges on the bench. After several hearings, the case was listed before the current bench comprising Justice Velmurugan and Justice Jothiraman.

After considering the entire material on record, the bench said the records disclose that even the bench that initiated the suo motu contempt observed that the contemnor adopted similar tactics with more than 20 judges of this court and ensured their recusal from hearing his cases.

The relevant portions of the orders establish that the contemnor was repeatedly cautioned and that findings were recorded regarding the impermissibility of his conduct. Despite such judicial observations and findings, the contemnor persisted with the same allegations even before this bench, the judges said.

“The tenor and language employed in the reply statement show that the contemnor did not express any regret or offer any apology for his earlier statements. On the contrary, he reiterated the same allegations and used inappropriate and intemperate expressions against this court,” the judges added.