• Investment World
• eWorld
• Brand Line
• Mentor
• Life
• Canvas
• Praxis
• Urban Pulse
• Brand Quest
• The New Manager

Stocks

• Quotes
• SE Diary
• Scoreboard
• Open-End Mutual Fund

Cross Currency

• Rates
  
  

Shipping

• Ports
  
  

Archives

• Yesterday
• Datewise
• Resources
• In Focus
• In Depth

Group Sites

• The Hindu
• The Hindu ePaper
• Business Line
• Business Line ePaper
• Sportstar
• Frontline
• The Hindu eBooks
• The Hindu Images

Our Legal Correspondent

`No role for petitioner after complaint'

Chennai June 4

Complaints against judicial officers could be enquired into under orders of the Chief Justice, Madras High Court, and the complainant had no further role to play in the matter, Mr Justice K. Chandru ruled.

The grievance of the writ petitioner, Ms K. Padma, was that the District Munsif, Namakkal, while discharging his judicial function, committed irregularities which caused the petitioner to make a complaint to the first respondent (Vigilance Cell, Madras High Court).

The Vigilance Cell sent recommendations on the same to the Principal District Judge, Namakkal, to enquire into the complaint. The petitioner submitted that the enquiry report dated December 20, 2004 of the second respondent (Principal District Judge, Namakkal) relating to High Court proceedings, served upon petitioner, was defective in nature, and consequently prayed that the first respondent be directed to conduct a fresh enquiry in respect of the petitioner's complaint.

`Enquiry misconceived'

The Judge held that the enquiry exercise by the petitioner was highly misconceived. When a complaint against a judicial officer was made, it could be enquired into under orders of the Chief Justice.

Any further proceedings on which action to be taken would be decided by him either through committees appointed by him or by the Full Court. The petitioner being the complainant, had no further role to play in this matter.

The Supreme Court (vide decision reported in 2000 (9) SCC 313 in Rajnit Prasad vs Union of India) held that once a complaint was given against a judicial officer, the complainant's role ended there, the Judge said.

Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner was misconceived and clearly not maintainable. Hence, the petition was dismissed.

More Stories on : Courts/Legal Issues | Tamil Nadu

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Monsoon magic

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line