The Madras High Court has held T. Ashok Surana guilty of criminal contempt. However, the Court has granted him one final opportunity to file an affidavit tendering an unconditional apology before imposing punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
A Division Bench comprising Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice M. Jothiraman reserved judgment on 04 January 2025 and pronounced it on 10 February 2026.
The Court initiated the proceedings suo motu pursuant to an order dated 17 February 2020 passed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice in R.O.C. No.1278/2020/OS.
Background of the Contempt Proceedings
The contempt action originated from W.P. No.24580 of 2017, filed by T. Ashok Surana as party-in-person. The Court dismissed that writ petition on 12 November 2019.
While dismissing the petition, the Division Bench recorded that Surana had levelled serious and scandalous allegations against the judicial institution and members of the Bench. He refused to argue before the Bench and alleged that one of the Judges had committed “genocide” and “crime against humanity on a scale unknown to mankind.” He also claimed that he had filed a case against the Judge and therefore the Bench should not hear his matter.
The Court further noted that Surana had allegedly adopted similar tactics against more than 20 Judges, leading to their recusal. Considering the nature of the pleadings and conduct, the Bench directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice for initiation of contempt proceedings.
Charges Framed Under Contempt of Courts Act
The contempt petition subsequently came before multiple Division Benches.
On 04 October 2021, a Bench comprising Justice P.N. Prakash and Justice R.N. Manjula framed charges under Sections 2(c)(i) and 2(c)(ii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, punishable under Section 12. The charges concerned scandalising the Court and interfering with the due course of judicial proceedings.
Since one of the Judges on that Bench was the subject of the allegations, the matter was referred to the Hon’ble Chief Justice to constitute an appropriate Bench, applying the principle nemo judex in causa sua.
Thereafter, a Division Bench comprising Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan heard the matter. By order dated 01 July 2025, that Bench recorded that Surana had repeated the same allegations despite caution. It then framed additional charges relating to repetition of scandalous statements and interference with judicial proceedings.
Reply and Court’s Assessment
The present Bench examined Surana’s reply statement. Instead of expressing regret, Surana reiterated his earlier allegations. He demanded that the Division Bench withdraw the contempt notice, apologise, and recuse from hearing any matter in which he appeared.
The Court found the language of the reply inappropriate and reflective of continued defiance. Despite repeated opportunities, Surana neither withdrew the allegations nor offered an apology.
Findings of Guilt
After reviewing the earlier orders dated 12 November 2019, 04 October 2021, and 01 July 2025, the Court concluded that Surana had persistently made scandalous and derogatory allegations against the institution and Judges of the Madras High Court.
The Bench held that such conduct amounted to scandalising the Court and interfering with the administration of justice. It therefore constituted criminal contempt under Sections 2(c)(i) and 2(c)(ii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Accordingly, the Court found the charges proved and held Surana guilty of contempt.
Final Opportunity Before Punishment
While recording the finding of guilt, the Bench granted Surana one final opportunity to purge the contempt. He must file an affidavit tendering an unconditional apology. The affidavit must clearly express genuine regret and contain an undertaking not to repeat such allegations in the future.
The Court directed him to file the affidavit on or before the next date of hearing. It also clarified that if he fails to do so, the Court will impose punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, including simple imprisonment for one month without further reference.
