Madras High Court summons CoP George for not honouring order

Justice N Kirubakaran, coming down heavily on the police for failing to comply with court orders or refusing to appear in courts, said, “If top officers displayed such attitude towards judicial orders; it was natural that their subordinates would tow a similar line.” 

Setting aside the plea by the AG of Tamil Nadu R Muthukumaraswamy for exemption from personal experience and that he could pass orders after perusing their counter affidavit which will be filed soon, Justice Kirubakaran told the AG not to embarrass the court. “Contempt of court proceedings are about court applying its mind. Once court makes up its mind, personal appearance of the person concerned is mandatory. It’s a matter of procedure,” the judge said.

Wondering as to why so many senior law officers, including the AG and the AAG, should represent the case, he said, “Court is not a place of sin, and the Commissioner need not consider appearing in court as a prestige issue. Let him appear tomorrow or the day after, at his convenience. What is the problem?” 

The issued relates to a writ petition filed by a Injambakkam resident Pon Thangavelu, pertaining to local councillor of Chennai corporation Annamalai paying a meagre Rs 55 to Rs 110 as annual property tax for his five bungalows, while it would cost several thousand rupees for other residents.

The case has led the court to call for property details of all councillors during the past 10 years. It also came to light that the councillor owned properties worth several crores but declared as nil in his election affidavit. Based on a court direction the I-T department had also told the court that the councillor had movable and immovable assets worth Rs 4 crore, including 700 g of gold jewels. 

The Corporation for its part also revealed that out of nine properties in question, the councillor had encroached on government poromboke land on five properties and the construction on patta lands was unauthorised. 

Since the scope of the case had enlarged and with it obtaining political hues, the court had directed the Commissioner of Police to provide security to the petitioner, who had highlighted the case. 

But with the direction not being adhered to, the petitioner’s counsel AP Suryprakasam moved a contempt plea against the Commissioner. 

However, with the court making it clear that the commissioner must appear before the court, the Advocate General told the court that he would soon ascertain the date of the Commissioner’s appearance and inform the court accordingly.