After a few days of speculation on Suriya's remark, the Madras High Court has refused to initiate contempt action against him. Here is an analysis of the entire sequence of events and the Madras High Court's order.
JAYA ROSHINI. S
The Madras High Court, on Friday, declined to initiate any Contempt proceedings against the famous Thamizh Cine Actor, Mr. Suriya who had remarked about the court’s denial to cancel the NEET examination for medical college admission.
The actor’s remark was followed by the death of 3 students who had killed themselves due to the pressure of the NEET exam. The actor released a letter paying condolence to the family of the deceased and discussed issues pertaining to the education system in India and his concerns regarding the same.
Mr. Surya’s interest in this issue also stems from the fact that he runs a Non- Profit organisation called Agaram that aims to provide quality education and equal opportunities to the under-privileged children.
Amongst other crucial things, Mr. Suriya in his letter (which runs to several lines) had also written
“Courts were delivering justice through video-conferencing due to life-threatening coronavirus fears (but) are ordering students to fearlessly go and write the exams.”
This line offended Hon’ble Justice S M Subramaniam of the Madras High, who wrote to the Chief Justice AP Sahi on 13.9.2020 seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against Mr. Suriya. In his letter to the Chief Justice, he had mentioned that “The said statement in my considered opinion amounts to contempt of Court as the integrity and devotion of the Hon'ble Judges as well as the Judicial System of our Great Nation are not only undermined but criticised in a bad shape, wherein there is threat for the public confidence on the Judiciary.”
Following this, The Tamil Nadu Advocate Association presided by Advocate Prabhakaran wrote a letter to the Chief Justice condemning the actions of Suriya. The letter questioned Surya’s right as an actor to criticise the Judiciary and added by saying patronising statements such as actors who read script written by scriptwriters cannot have knowledge regarding the functioning of the judiciary. Interestingly, they disregarded the concern of the actor and accused him of advertising himself through a sensitive issue that can trigger the public against the respectful justice system of India. The letter also pointed out that “It is not a drama or a cinema dialogue to speak whatever he feels it’s about the integrity of the country and any hate speech against the functioning of judges and judicial system is a contempt described under contempt of courts Act.”
Moving further, the letter claimed that “I am wondering what does the actor Surya does know about the functioning of Judiciary instead of acting in movies and reciting scripts written by scriptwriters.”
The issue took an interesting turn when six retired judges of the Madras High Court joined hands in support of actor Suriya. They wrote a letter to the Chief Justice requesting him to avoid any action against the actor. The letter by retired Justices K Chandru, K N Basha, T Sudanthiram, D Hariparanthaman, K Kannan and G M Akbar Ali stated that:
“We are afraid that such a construction made on the statement of Surya will be slightly off the mark and it does not require any action as required by the learned Judge."
The translation from Thamizh to English could have also caused the confusion since words like ‘Courts do not have moral right’ as claimed, does not find place in Suriya’s letter. The letter further stated that “Where four students have committed suicide unable to meet the NEET requirement and in such a supercharged atmosphere, an artistic person’s overreaction should not be taken seriously out of context."
Unprecedentedly, several designated senior Counsels and Women lawyers also wrote to the Chief Justice requesting him not to initiate contempt proceedings.
This case shouldn’t be taken lightly as it is a crucial process to initiate a criminal contempt proceeding against a citizen for criticising the institutions in a democratic country, including Courts. Before merely analysing whether Surya’s statement was demeaning the Indian Judicial system, the context of the statement should be considered:
It is to be noted that the Supreme Court was approached seeking cancellation of NEET during the pandemic as it is highly competitive and life deciding exam and hence might be stressful for the students causing them harm. These petitions were not entertained by the Apex Court as they felt it was necessary to not keep the lives of children on hold. This triggered public anger and dissatisfaction. Later when three students committed suicide on the same day for the very same reason, it is only expected from a reasonable man to be enraged with the authorities who denied the cancellation. The lines said by Suriya, who is known as a gentleman, should be considered as an outburst of emotions during a grieving time and nothing more than that.
Secondly, Suriya did not just make these statements as an actor but as a stakeholder in the issue since his organisation ‘Agaram’ helps students from underprivileged communities attend higher education. Many children from his organisation have also been subjected to this pressure during an already stressful pandemic. His right to form opinion on the subject is hence justified.
Moving on to the details of the letter published by Suriya, the letter focused on various inequalities in the field of education and how the death of three students were not given adequate attention as it is supposed to get. The letter as a whole had various issues he was concerned about and not just the supposed defamatory line on judiciary. Picking out one line from an extensively written letter that is aimed at enlightening people on the current situation may not be justified. In the fear of one line being defamatory, a citizen should not be taken away his entire right to constructive criticism of the authorities.
Even if such lines were taken separately, the spirit or the essence of the line is to be taken. The line brought out the mere irony of the functioning of the Judicial System in videoconferencing due to the fear of the pandemic when students are being forced to face this fear. The tone of this statement though is brought out by anger, is an ordinary statement being made by a citizen with concern.
India being a democratic country that runs for the people, if criminal proceedings were initiated against citizens every time for mere statements of anger, it will subvert free speech guaranteed under the Constitution.
All of this said, the Court analysed the situation thoroughly and passed an important and ideal order. The court analysed Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and looked into criminal contempt extensively. The issue had also been referred to the learned Advocate General, who declined any contempt action. The order took into consideration the nature of statement made by the actor, the context in which it was made and his personal capacity as an activist in making such a statement.
The order justified the method of videoconferencing adopted and how the courts or the judges have not been idle even during a pandemic situation; this is an absolutely true statement that has not been denied by any. Senior Advocate Sriram Panchu’s opinion on how there is a need for introspection, communication and understanding on all sides was emphasized in the order. Interestingly, views of Socrates, Aristotle and others were used to describe the intent and tone of every statement.
It is also pertinent to note that the Court did not give any conclusive finding about the statement made by Suriya. As against the misinformation from some media and right wing fringe elements that the Court found the actor’s statement unnecessary & unwarranted, it was only opined that the actor’s statement ‘may have been absolutely unnecessary and even unwarranted...’ but moved further to hold that “it is good to form opinions and dissents to evolve a purer thought, but trivials should not be allowed to spread as if they were wild fire.” Clearly, Suriya’s opinion could be dissented according to the Court, without spreading it as if they were wild fire.
Lastly, the Hon’ble Chief Justice and the learned Advocate General analysed the situation and highlighted the spirit of Democracy in-depth to perfection. This case surely elevated the spirit of the Judiciary unlike the contempt case of advocate Prashanth Bhushan where even if it was a 1Re fine, it was still a contempt conviction that was not deserved in my opinion.
(The author, Ms. JAYA ROSHINI. S is our intern. She is currently pursuing her under graduation at the Tamil Nadu National Law University.)
Write to us for feedback at nirmalkumar.m.law@gmail.com
Comentarios