Judah’s Limerick
who I thought struggled daily with strange terms like Amicus curiae and tort
News Story
Upasana Sajeev 13 April 2022 10:25 PM
Lawyer Seen Canoodling Lady During Virtual Court: Madras High Court Sentences Lawyer For Two Weeks Imprisonment With Fine
The Madras High Court bench of Justice P.N Prakash and Justice A.A Nakkiran recently sentenced Mr. R.D Santhana Krishnan, a lawyer practicing in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puduchery to Simple Imprisonment for Two Weeks and a fine of Rs. 6000.
Mr R.D Santhana Krishnan was seen canoodling a lady, on 20.12.2021 while attending the virtual court proceedings. The video clipping of the said incident had gone viral and the court had taken suo moto cognizance of the issue.
The bench on 21.12.2021 gave directions to the Registry to register suo moto criminal proceedings and to preserve the video for further investigation and further to remove the video from the internet. The court had also directed the CB-CID to register an FIR and file a preliminary report.
The court had charged Santhana Krishnan under Section 2(c)(i) read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for canoodling a woman and lowering the authority of the Court; under Section 2(c)(ii) read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for interfering with the due course of the judicial proceedings of the Court and under Section 2(c)(iii) read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for bringing the administration of justice by the High Court into disrepute.
he CB-CID identified the woman in the video and her statement was recorded under Section 164 CrPC. During the course of the investigation it was furthher revealed that the woman was being exploited by Santhana Krishnan due to her family’s financial situation.
In his affidavit Santhana Krishnan admitted to the occurrence of the incident but pleaded that he was not aware that the video in his laptop was on when he canoodled with the lady, “X”. The court was however, not satisfied with this reply.
“It is limpid that he had consciously elected to come into the Court proceedings virtually. After having elected so, being a lawyer himself, he was required to maintain a sense of respect and decorum for the Court. Irrespective of the fact whether his camera was in ‘on’ mode or ‘off’ mode, he ought not to have indulged in the impugned act while being in the virtual platform.”
The court further stated that being a lawyer, Santhana Krishnan was expected to maintain a decorum while he was attending court. The court also noted that there would not have been any grievance if he had opted to engage in the act after locking himself out of the virtual platform.
The whole problem for him was he wanted to have the best of the worlds at the same time, viz., to be in virtual hearing platform with his professional work and simultaneously, to canoodle with “X”. One cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hound. Therefore, we find that his explanation is not satisfactory.”
Though the lady appears to be an accomplice in the video, the court considered her plight and the shame and trauma suffered by her. The court took on record the submission made by Santhana Krishnan to compensate her by paying a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs and directed to hand over the same to the Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority. The same was complied with.
Seeing that Santhana Krishnan had surrendered and shown remorse the court ordered him to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks for each charge, which shall run concurrently, and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for each charge
(totally Rs.6,000/- for three charges) and in default to undergo one week simple imprisonment for each charge. However, since Santhana Krishnan had already undergone 34 days of incarceration, for each charge. However, since Santhana Krishnan had already undergone 34 days of incarceration, the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on him was set off against the period of incarceration he had already undergone pursuant to his arrest and detention by CB-CID.
“Though we are too small to play Jesus, yet, one cannot be oblivious of the fact that there could be many a Santhana Krishnan in various walks of life who are lucky enough in not getting captured in a camera or clever enough to get away by hook or crook. This Court cannot engage in moral policing”
___________________________________