LexMADRAS HIGH COURT ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION versus DR. A.S. ANAND, HON. THE CJJ., AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A MADRAS HIGH COURT ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION v. DR. A.S. ANAND, HON. THE CJJ., AND ANR. FEBRUARY 14, 2001 B [K.T. THOMAS, R.P. SETHI AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] Constitution of India-Article 217-Determination of correct age of Chief Justice of India-Writ Petition under Article 32-Held, no evidence produced before Court proving correct age of Chief Justice-Show Cause C notice issued as to ll'hy criminal proceedings should not be initiated against petitioner-Penal Code, 1860-Section 193. One K, claiming to act on behalf of petitioner-Association, filed a Writ Petition under Article 32 to determine the age of the present Chief Justice D of India by declaring that he was born on 1.11.1934 and not on 1.11.1936 and then to declare that he had attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.1999. Meanwhile, the Registry of this Court received a petition from some persons claiming to be members of the petitioner-Association stating that the Association had not taken any decision to file any Writ Petition before this Court or to initiate any other proceedings against the Chief Justice of India E and that K has filed this Writ Petition in individual capacity. Dismissing the Writ Petition, the Court HELD: I.I. The Petition filed by the members of the Madras High Court Advocates Association has not been properly tiled before this Court. It F is assumed that this petition is filed by Kon behalf of the association. This Writ Petition is an abuse of the process of the Court. Apart from the non- disclosure of what fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed or to be enforced through this Writ Petition, it is a reckless action to malign and scandalise the highest judicial institution of this country.11026-A-CI G 1.2. The Writ Petition contains many statements which are ex facie false. Petitioner knows very well that the President of India had determined the dispute in 1991 itself, when the present Chief Justice was Judge of a High Court. This Court is anguished at the temerity by which the petitioner has chosen to approach this Court for seeking a declaration that a high H Constitutional functionary like the Chief Justice of India was born on 1st 1024 ·- MAD.RAS 1-1.C. ADVOCATES. ASSO. '"DR. A.S. ANAND, CJI. [THOMAS, J.] ) 025 November, 1934, about which he has no knowledge, nor even a scrap of paper. A (1026-0-F-G( 1.3. The petitioner has made false statements in the writ petition intentionally for the purpose of being used in the judicial proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner is required to show cause why prosecution proceedings should not be initiated against him for offence under Section B 193 I.P.C. If his explanation does not reach this Court before 28.2.2001, it will be treated that the petitioner has no explanation to offer in the matter. [1027-G] ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 77 of 200 I. c (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) R. Karruppan-in-Person for the Petitioner. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THOMAS, J. Heard the petitioner Mr. Karuppan who argued in person. D This writ petition is filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India to determine the age of the present Chief Justice of India Dr. Justice A.S. Anand by declaring that he was born on 1.11.1934, and then to declare that he had attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.1999 and consequently to issue a writ of quo warranto against him. The petitioner is described as the Madras High Court Advocates' Association. The writ petition is filed by R. Karuppan as "petitioner-in- person" who has also sworn to an affidavit stating that the facts contained in the writ petition are true to his knowledge and that no part of it is false and nothing material is concealed therefrom. In the meanwhile, the Registry of this Court received a petition from some persons describing themselves to be the members of the Madras High Court Advocates' Association which is signed by 76 persons who claim to E F be members of the said Association. In that petition it is stated that Madras High Court Advocates' Association had not taken any decision to file any G Writ Petition or to initiate any other proceedings against t~e Chief Justice of India. It is requested therein that the Supreme Court shall not entertain any petition filed by Sri R. Karuppan either on behalf of the Madras High Court Advocates' Association or using his name as President of the said Association. "- We d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.