•  In Chennai
• Tamil Nadu Coronavirus Helpline Number
• Chennai CITI Bank IFSC Code
• Chennai Axis Bank IFSC Code
• SBI Chennai IFSC Code

TOIOPEN APPMORE FROM TOITop 
NewsMask 
IndiaCovid-19 
Updates

• CITY

TN lawyer uses filthy language at overspeeding car during virtual court, fined

A Subramani | TNN | Jun 10, 2020, 17:25 IST

Get Notifications on latest Chennai News

CHENNAI: Call it the perils of virtual courts. A lawyer

 with 30 years’ experience uttered filthy cuss words instinctively on seeing a rashly driven car, forgetting the fact that he was still in the middle of his argument in a virtual court

. He has since been fined by the court.

G Samwell Rajendran was arguing a bail case standing near a road on Monday. He saw a rashly driven car whizzing past, he exclaimed, using a filthy phrase in Tamil, as to how reckless the driver was. He uttered the words in virtual court while the judge and other court employees were listening and watching.

READ MORE FROM 

Irked by the “filthy, offensive and intimidatory” words, Tuticorin

principal district and sessions judge N Logeswaran initiated summary contempt proceedings against the lawyer and issued him a show-cause notice.

On Tuesday, not satisfied with the explanation offered by the lawyer, the court imposed a fine of Rs 200 on him for causing “intentional interruption to judicial proceedings.” The fine was to be paid on Wednesday (June 10).

“This court is of the view that even an uneducated village man will not utter the filthy language

 in a public place….This court finds that the accused has insulted the principal district judge sitting in the judicial proceedings during working hours, and committed an offence under Section 228 (Intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting in judicial proceeding) of the IPC,” said the sessions judge.

The order was communicated to Rajendran through an email and to his WhatsApp number. It will be uploaded on the official website of the district court.

The judge, who himself lodged the complaint, mentioned that the prosecutor, a woman stenographer, a protocol officer and a couple of other court officials, who were present in the virtual court and witnessed the ugly incident, had given a ‘written report’ to the judge about the incident.

Rajendran wrote to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu

 and Puducherry explaining the incident in a bid to pre-empt any penal action. It, however, did not help, as the court concluded that the remarks were an “intentional insult in the course of judicial proceedings.”