without expressing any opinion on whether his comments amounted to bringing the institution to disrepute, or whether the same attribute motives to a conduct of a Judge, exercising my judicial discretion, I deem it fit to drop these proceedings, leaving it open to the 4/ petitioner to pursue this matter if he so desires by moving the Hon’ble Madras High Court directly, as is permissible under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Petition disposed of accordingly. Dated at Chennai, this the 26th day of February 2026. ADVOCATE GENERAL OF TAMIL NADU

by Sekar Reporter · March 1, 2026

BEFORE THE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF TAMIL NADU,

HIGH COURT, CHENNAI

PRESENT: THIRU.P.S.RAMAN,

ADVOCATE GENERAL OF TAMIL NADU

Dated 26102.2026

CONSENT PETITION No.l of 2026

Rangarajan Narasimhan

“Aarangan Thirumutram”

Kollidam Road

Srirangam, Trichy 620 006 Petitioner

-vs-

Mr.Justice.(Retd) D.Hariparandhaman

Aged about 64 years

Son of Durai Swami

Residing at 2, First Main Road

Kamaraj Nagar West

Thiruvanmiyur

Chennai 600 041 Respondent

The above referred Consent Petition has been preferred by Thiru Rangarajan Narasiman, resident of Srirangam, Trichy, seeking the permission of the Advocate General for initiating proceedings for Contempt of Court under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the respondent, namely, Mr.Justice D.Hariparanthaman, retired Judge of the Madras High Court. The above petition was posted for hearing on 23101.2026, and the petitioner appeared in person and presented his case. The contentions of the petitioner in brief have been set out in the proceedings of that day, which shall form part of this order.

2 .. . .

The sum and substance of the allegation made by the petitioner in this petition is that the respondent, a retired Judge of the Madras High Court, had given two interviews on 04.12.2025 and 06.12.2025 on YouTube channels, namely, and “Puthiya Thalaimurai

Nerpadapesu”. The petitioner has filed transcripts of both the interviews, as well as shared the links, and I have had the opportunity to peruse the same.

The point for determination is whether the contents of the above interviews amount to contemptuous conduct (criminal contempt) within the meaning of Section 2(c; of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

When persons who havethemselvesbeenholding constitutional.osts are accused of criminal contempt for public statements made by them regarding the conduct of the judiciary or any particular Judge, more care is desired to be taken by the sanctioning authority. In this regard I may relevantly refer to a somewhat identical situation that arose when petitions were moved before the Attorney General of India against Justice Markandey Katju (retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India) over certain statements alleged to have been made by the Judge while giving expert evidence in the UK, which according to the petitioner therein, denigrated the judicial system and was interfering with the administration of justice. The Attorney General of India, as the authority, recused himself as the learned Judge was known to him, and referred the matter to the Solicitor General of India

. . . 3 . . . .

since the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides for the same. The Solicitor General after considering the matter decided to drop the proceedings, as he felt that it was inappropriate and inexpedient to dwell on the issue as it related to a former Judge or the upreme Court.

In the instant case, while the respondent, namely, Justice

D.Hariparanthaman is acquainted with me, it is only in his capacity as a fellow lawyer prior to his elevation and thereafter as a Judge of the Madras High Court. In this regard, I do not face the same embarrassment as the Attorney General had expressed.

While I believe that eminent persons, particularly those who have been in high constitutional posts, need to be restrained in their comments about the functioning of the judiciary or of any particular Judge, the same has also got to be viewed in the context of freedom of speech and expression, and in particular, the right of criticism.

I have seen the statements made, and I may state that I do not personally concur or even approve of the views expressed therein. Since the statements have been made by a retired Judge of the High Court who knows his responsibility, without expressing any opinion on whether his comments amounted to bringing the institution to disrepute, or whether the same attribute motives to a conduct of a Judge, exercising my judicial discretion, I deem it fit to drop these proceedings, leaving it open to the

petitioner to pursue this matter if he so desires by moving the Hon’ble Madras High Court directly, as is permissible under the Contempt of Courts

Act, 1971.

Petition disposed of accordingly.

Dated at Chennai, this the 26th day of February 2026.

ADVOCATE GENERAL OF TAMIL NADU

o