Madras High Court Calls For Action Against District Judge After Vigilance Inquiry Confirms Misuse Of Powers

Justice N Satish Kumar, who had earlier set aside an order passed by the District Judge externing the Deputy Superintendent of Police, has directed the registry to place the inquiry report before the Vigilance Committee, comprising senior judges of the High Court, for appropriate action. The court has also directed the report to be placed before the Transfer Committee for taking immediate action against the District Judge.

The observations were made in connection with pleas challenging two suo motu orders passed by the District Judge, one on 4th September, externing some accused, and another order passed on 8th September, remanding Mr M.Sankar Ganesh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram, under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act.

While setting aside the suo motu orders earlier this month, the court had called the district judge's order unwarranted and opined that a probe was necessary to uncover the truth. It had been alleged that the District Judge had passed the orders due to personal enmity with his former Personal Security Officer (PSO), whose family was involved in the case.

The enquiry report has now confirmed that the District judge had pressurised the police to register a case against his former PSO, suspecting that he had been spreading false information about the judge. It was also found that the court had remanded the DSP for failing to arrest the former PSO. The Registrar (Vigilance) also found that the District Judge had pressurised a Food Safety Officer to raid the bakery owned by the PSO's father-in-law, where the alleged incidents took place.

After reviewing the report, the judge opined that the findings substantiated a misuse of judicial power and that appropriate disciplinary steps should be taken against the erring judge at the earliest opportunity.

Background

Two complaints were filed before the Walajabad Police Station by one T Sivakumar and by one Parvathi. The complaints were based on altercations that took place between the two groups, one consisting of the judge's PSO and the other of Parvathi. The allegation was that when Parvathi's husband and others came to the bakery owned by the PSO's father-in-law, there arose some altercation regarding the alleged quality of the product.

Since both the parties agreed to settle the matter amicably, the complaints were closed on the same day.

The petitioners alleged that due to personal animosity with the PSO, the judge had directed the Inspector to register an FIR based on the closed complaint. When the judge threatened to take action if no FIR was filed, two FIRs were registered against both the parties. The FIR against Parvathi's husband and others was registered for offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) BNS and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damages and Loss) Act, 1992. The FIR against the PSO and his family members was filed under offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2) of BNS, Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

Following this, the judge passed the first suo motu order under Section 10 of the SC/ST Act for externment of the accused persons, including the PSO, his father-in-law and others. The judge also called upon the DSP to enquire about the implementation of the order. On appearance, the DSP was made to wait from morning till evening and the second suo motu order was passed remanding him to judicial custody. The DSP was then taken to the sub-jail by the court staff in the official car of the judge.

The high court had noted that before passing the order of externment under Section 10 of the SC/ST Act there must be either a complaint or a Police report. In the present case, the court noted that except for the FIR, there were no other police reports.

With respect to the order remanding the DSP, the court noted that arrest was the discretion of the judge and a court could not direct that a particular person be arrested. The court also noted that unless there was a definite recommendation on the administrative side or a positive finding with regard to the negligent act under the SC/ST Act, the court could not automatically initiate action against a public servant as a matter of right.

Case Title: Lokeshwaran Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case No: Crl.O.P.Nos.24853 & 24866 of 2025