Tamil Nadu Advocate General P.S. Raman has refused to grant consent to initiate contempt proceedings against Justice Hariparanthaman, a retired judge of the Madras High Court. The request arose over remarks made by the former judge about sitting judge Justice G.R. Swaminathan.
Petition Seeking Consent Under Contempt Law
Rangarajan Narasimhan filed a petition before the Advocate General seeking consent under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. He relied on two interviews dated December 4, 2025 and December 6, 2025. In those interviews, the retired judge allegedly made statements concerning Justice Swaminathan.
Narasimhan argued that the statements amounted to criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act.
Advocate General Calls for Greater Caution
In his order, the Advocate General stressed that authorities must exercise greater caution when allegations of criminal contempt target former constitutional functionaries.
He referred to a similar instance involving former Supreme Court judge Justice Markandey Katju. In that case, the Solicitor General chose not to pursue contempt proceedings. The government considered it inappropriate and inexpedient to proceed against a former judge of the Supreme Court.
Balance Between Restraint and Free Speech
Raman observed that individuals who have held high constitutional office should exercise restraint while commenting on the judiciary or individual judges. At the same time, he emphasized that such matters must be viewed in the context of freedom of speech and expression.
“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 to be viewed in the context of freedom of speech and expression, and in particular, the right of criticism,” he wrote.
AG Declines Consent Without Entering Merits
The Advocate General clarified that he did not personally agree with or approve of the views expressed by the retired judge. However, he chose not to examine whether the remarks amounted to criminal contempt.
“I have seen the statements made, and I may state that I do not personally concur or even approve of the views expressed therein… exercising my judicial discretion, I deem it fit to drop these proceedings,” Raman stated.
He left the question of contempt open. He did not express any opinion on whether the comments brought the institution into disrepute or attributed motives to a sitting judge.
Liberty to Approach Madras High Court
Raman made it clear that Narasimhan remains free to approach the Madras High Court directly. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 permits such a course.
With this decision, the Advocate General declined to grant statutory consent. However, he did not foreclose other legal remedies available to the petitioner.
