Tamil Nadu government tops in contempt cases: Courts should be more serious about contempt cases
Wednesday, October 14th, 2015 @ 9:24PM
We have received news reports which mention that there are around 20,000 cases where the court orders are not implemented properly and Tamil Nadu government tops in the contempt of courts. However this is no surprise to those who are familiar with the Judicial functioning in the state.
In most cases filed against the government, public prosecutors try to convince the court that the case should not be admitted at all. Loksatta Party has experienced the same in the state assembly proceedings live telecast PIL. The then public prosecutor Mr. Navaneetha Krishnan argued that the case should not be admitted citing reasons which were irrelevant for the case. However the High Court decided otherwise.
If the cases against government are admitted, all possible tactics are used to delay the case proceedings. At times the government lawyer submits unnecessary documents and reports only to distract and dilute the seriousness of the case. In a PIL filed to bring ‘Right To Services’ act in Tamil Nadu, the government submitted that over 44,000 government services have been delivered to the general public and created a picture as if the government ensures speedy & efficient delivery of public services and the case is closed. However the detail that how many total applications were made by the general public seeking services from the government was not furnished.
In some cases the government will plead the court that it is already planning to implement the demand and will settle the case without any orders from the court. For a PIL filed in Madurai bench and then in Madras HC demanding Lok Ayuktha in Tamil Nadu, the government responded that plans are on the anvil for setting up Lok Ayuktha in the state and requested to close the case amicably. However after that no steps were taken by the state government to establish Lok Ayuktha.
If any judgment is delivered against the government, in spite of all the mentioned hurdles, the government will simply refuse to comply with the verdict. The primary reason for this complacent behaviour is the difficulties in getting the judgment implemented by means of a contempt plea. The original judgment itself is much delayed and the contempt plea will incur additional delays. Even in the contempt pleas, the case will end with an apology from the government for its inaction.
The party request the Madras HC to view contempt cases in a serious manner especially in cases where government is involved. Apart from warnings for contempt cases, court should levy fines, seek periodical reports from Chief Secretary on the implementation status of court orders and recommend departmental actions in case of non-compliant officers.
Categories: Press Releases