Did Actor Suriya Commit Contempt of Court?

-- RVR

Did an action for criminal contempt lie against Tamil actor Suriya for his sharp comment against the judiciary earlier this month?  Let us take a look.

 

Eleven students from eleven states had petitioned the supreme court seeking a postponement of NEET – the entrance test for undergraduate medical admissions – that was scheduled for September 2020 after two prior postponements.  The reason urged was the continuing pandemic.  At the hearing on 17^th August 2020, the supreme court asked the petitioners, “COVID may continue for a year more. Are you going to wait for another year? Do you know what is the loss to the country and the career peril to the students?”. Not convinced with the petitioners’ plea, the supreme court dismissed their petition. So NEET was successfully held on 13^th September 2020, with about 15 lakh students writing the test across the country in over 4800 test centres.

 

Now to Suriya. He is a star in Tamil Nadu, with a huge fan base. He has a good image among large sections of the youth and is known for his charitable work, especially funding educational expenses of poor students, through a trust.  After NEET exam was held on 13^th September this year, he tweeted a lengthy statement in Tamil on the same day.  Here are some translated extracts from that statement.

 

“The suicide of three students on the same day arising from fear of NEET exam shakes the conscience…… It is distressing to note that students are compelled to write an exam and prove their mettle even amidst the coronavirus that causes fear of life.”   

 

“The government which has to create equal opportunities for all, brings in an educational system through a law that creates disparities. Those who do not know the realities of the poor and the downtrodden frame educational policies.”

 

And then, Surya fired his salvo against the judiciary in these words: “The court which ‘fears for life’ (the actual Tamil expression here means ‘fearing for their own lives’ – i.e., not for the lives of others) because of coronavirus and renders justice through video-conferencing, orders that students must go out without fear and write their exam.”

 

Suriya went on to emphasise his opposition and antipathy to the very idea of NEET – not merely for the reason that three stressed-out students took their own lives shortly before the date of the exam. He said this too in his statement: 

“Manu Needhi (meaning, justice or social code according to sage Manu) examinations like NEET not only rob our students of opportunities but also take away their lives ..…..”

 

A sitting judge of the Madras High Court wrote a letter to the chief justice of the court, expressing his opinion that Suriya’s comment on the judiciary amounted to contempt of court, warranting contempt proceedings. Unfortunately, that letter soon got leaked to the press and social media.  

 

A division bench of the Madras High Court – i.e., two judges – led by the chief justice deliberated on the question if Suriya’s comment on the judiciary required initiation of criminal contempt proceedings. They passed a detailed judicial order on the 18^th September 2020, holding that the matter did not deserve to be pursued.  Presently, the controversy seems legally settled. Still we may form our opinions.

 

The offence of criminal contempt alleged against Suriya chiefly falls under one of its three broad forms set out in The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.  Considering his case alone, his comment on the judiciary would amount to criminal contempt if it:

 

(a) scandalises or tends to scandalise any court,

(b) or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court.

 

In his statement of 13^th Sept 2020, Suriya strongly expressed himself against NEET and criticised the exam, even though the supreme court had earlier upheld its constitutional validity and cleared the way for the holding of NEET. It was apparent that Suriya had a grouse against NEET for his own reasons. 

 

Experts may know that on the issue of “scandalising the court” as against fair criticism, Lord Denning said: “It is the right of every man, in Parliament or out of it, in the press or over the broadcast, to make fair comment, even outspoken comment, on matters of public interest.  Those who comment can deal faithfully with all that is done in a court of justice……” These words of Lord Denning have also been quoted in the order of the Madras High Court dated 18^th September 2020 which closed the issue put against Suriya. How did the actor measure up to what Lord Denning said?

 

With three young misguided medical aspirants in Tamil Nadu taking their own lives shortly before 13^th September, Suriya actually gave vent to his stand-alone anti-NEET views.  His statement referred to the court (meaning, judges occupying seats of justice) in disparaging words, obviously because the court had upheld the Constitutional validity of NEET and further blocked an attempt to have the exam put off beyond 13^th September. So, his basic antipathy to NEET extended towards the court and judges too who had adjudged NEET as lawful and negatived a plea for its postponement beyond 13^th September.

Suriya’s extended antipathy towards the court on the NEET issue overtook him. So he said, “The court which ‘fears for life’ (the actual Tamil expression here means ‘fearing for their own lives’ – i.e., not for the lives of others) because of corona and renders justice through video-conferencing, orders that students must go out without fear and write their exam.” Here he made an accusation against the court, viz., the judges were adopting dishonest double standards. That is, the judges followed one standard for themselves by which they didn’t hold physical hearings and, fearing for their own lives and for safeguarding their lives, they held hearings of their cases through video-conferencing. But, as he meant clearly, judges had another set of standards for students whom they directed to be physically present at NEET exam centres to take their entrance test, exposing the students to the coronavirus and not caring for the lives of the students. Actually, no court “directed” students to attend NEET exam. The supreme court only refused to postpone it beyond September.

Suriya’s remarks cannot be construed as “fair comment” or even as “outspoken comment”.  Nor did he “faithfully” deal with what the courts did while adjudging the NEET issues or while dispensing justice during the pandemic in its many stages. He did not keep himself within the limits set out by Lord Denning when a court has to adjudge if he by his statement “scandalised the court” or “lowered the authority of the court”.   Here, in the words of Wilmot CJ, ‘authority’ does not mean “that coercive power of the Judges, but the deference and respect which is paid to them and their acts, from an opinion of their justice and integrity”. Hence it appears that Suriya’s offending comment did scandalise the court or did lower the authority of the court.

 

The order of the Madras High Court deciding not to initiate and pursue the contempt issue with Suriya sets out in detail, with statistics, how he was wrong on facts with regard to dispensation of justice in Tamil Nadu during the pandemic. It explains how courts in Tamil Nadu, including the high court, had functioned to the best of their capacity, from 24.3.2020 to 15.9.220.  The scenario in the rest of the country, as we can see, would be no better. If Suriya had been issued notice and asked to answer a charge of criminal contempt, he would find it hard to justify his accusations against the court and judges.  Now he has been spared of that botheration, and he could be feeling thankful.

Did not Suriya know the difference between students physically attending a 3-hour NEET exam on one day during the pandemic with all precautions, and lawyers, court staff and judges, and litigants and witnesses too, coming to court five days a week throughout the virus period in all courts? And which of the two events could be managed throughout with best precautions? It is hard to imagine that an intelligent Suriya could not appreciate the difference. He just let malice be his voice and attacked the integrity of judges.

Suriya deserves credit for all his charitable work. But he has no right to offend the judiciary in the hope that an aggressive anti-NEET stance could be rewarding in the muddy public sphere in Tamil Nadu, with all major political parties speaking against NEET all day. His comment on the judiciary was wrong. It was cheap. It was disparaging. It would surely appeal to thousands of his fans and could make them lose faith in the integrity of the judiciary. It most probably amounted to criminal contempt, for which the best course would be to issue a notice to Suriya, hear him and decide the case according to law.  

If Suriya’s reference to court and video-conference hearings in his statement was only to the supreme court and its hearings, and not to the Madras High Court and its hearings, then the supreme court alone will have jurisdiction to initiate or entertain a case of criminal contempt against the actor, and not the Madras High Court. Since the high court has, in its order, analysed his case in great detail on merits, the legal question if Suriya committed criminal contempt is examined here – whichever be the court that will have jurisdiction over the case.

The law of contempt of court is designed to protect the honour and dignity of judges who cannot be expected to engage in a dialogue with outsiders and counter any false accusations or baseless disparaging remarks hurled at judges.  Such protection is in the interest of the public, and is therefore regarded as protection for the public.  There is no law on “contempt of the prime minister” or “contempt of chief ministers” or contempt of political functionaries or other classes of people.  All these persons can go to court against their accusers or may trade charges in the open, within legal limits, but a sitting judge cannot and must not do all that.  Hence the need to protect the honour and dignity of our judges on such occasions, employing the court’s Constitutional and statutory powers to try and punish for contempt.  A court may not brandish those powers with gusto or too often, nor keep them tucked in always. Using them is a fine art.

* * * * *

Copyright © R. Veera Raghavan 2020