Suo Motu vs K.Aneesh (Roll No. K 137/2018)

A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

The respondent has today filed an affidavit tendering unconditional apology for the posts put up by him on social media, that was the basis for the initiation of these suo motu proceedings against him. Paragraph Nos.2 to 7 of the affidavit filed by the respondent reads as follows:

“2. I am filing this affidavit to tender my apology for the act which is happened from my part.

The face book post published by me, were brought into the notice of the Honorable High Court by the Honourable Munsiff Pathanamthitta, Family Court Judge Pathanamthitta, Additional District Judge III Pathanamthitta and Advocate K G Muraleedharan Unnithan through their complaints. The Honourable High Court ordered to initiate suo motu Contempt Case (Criminal) proceedings against me.

As an Advocate, I believe that, the act which committed by me does not match with the dignity and ethics of my profession and it will affect the balance of Judicial System.

Hence I have revoked my words which I have published through face book page against the above Judicial Officers.

As an Advocate, I am liable to stand within the Limits of standards of professional conduct and etiquette.

Hence, I tender my unconditional apology and remorse to the incident which happened and I will be vigilant to Stand in the Limits of Standards of Professional Conduct and etiquette in future also.”

Taking note of the above unconditional apology tendered by the respondent, we deem it appropriate to take a lenient view in the matter and close this Contempt of Court Case. We might only counsel the respondent, who is an Advocate, to always remind himself of the fact that he is an integral part of the Judicial Institution, and if he has any reservations with regard to the manner of functioning of any judicial officer, he must bring it to the notice of the authorities constituted to look into such matters under the internal mechanism that we have in place to deal with the same. It would be wholly inappropriate for an Advocate to publish baseless and unsubstantiated allegations against Judicial Officers in the State on public platforms since such allegations would inevitably lead to the undermining of public faith and confidence in the Judicial Institution, the esteem and honour of which it is the duty of every Advocate to safeguard.

The Contempt of Court Case is closed by accepting the unconditional apology tendered by the contemnor.