No offence meant, Chennai advocate apologises

No offence meant, Chennai advocate apologises
PRESS TRUST OF INDIA

New Delhi, Jan 16: Chennai-based advocate S K Sundaram, convicted by the Supreme Court on contempt of court charges for threatening the Chief Justice of India on the age issue, today apologised for his act and assured the court that he would never commit or even attempt to commit such an act.

"I hereby tender an unconditional apology for what had transpired before the court and I hereby undertake that I will not commit or even attempt to commit any act of criminal contempt", Sundaram said in an affidavit before a division bench comprising Justice K T Thomas and Justice R P Sethi.

The Bench had on December 15 handed down a six-month imprisonment sentence to Sundaram after convicting him of committing gross criminal contempt of court by sending a threatening telegram to Chief Justice A S Anand.

However, keeping in view the health condition of the advocate, the Bench had suspended the sentence for a month asking him to give an undertaking not to commit or attempt to commit such an act in future.

If such an undertaking was filed by Sundaram, who had sent the telegram to the CJI on November 3, the Bench had said "the sentence now imposed by us would remain suspended for a further period of five years."

The Bench today accepted the apology but directed the Madras High Court Registrar to report to the Apex Court after six months time whether the contemnor complied with the undertaking given by him.

The Bench on December 15 had warned Sundaram that "if the contemnor commits any act of criminal contempt during the said period of five years, the suspension of the sentence will stand revoked and then he will have to undergo the sentence of imprisonment for six months."

The Court said the defiant and malafide attitude of the contemnor was apparent from the fact that despite knowing about the actual date of birth of the Chief Justice of India and the Presidential Order dated May 16, 1991, which was read over by the Solicitor General, he chose to adhere to his false claim alleging the year of birth of the CJI to be 1934.

The President in 1991, in consultation with the then CJI, had held that the date of birth of Justice Anand was November 1, 1936, the Bench said.

The court had initiated suo motu contempt proceedings on the basis of "intemperate and threatening" language used by Sundaram in his telegram to the CJI asking him to step down or face criminal proceedings.

The Bench on November 27 had said "On a perusal of the documents produced by Solicitor General Harish Salve, we feel, prima facie, that the document purported to have been sent by the General Council of Bar, London, on September 4, 2000 to Sohul & Co is not a genuine document as it speaks only about the year of birth of CJI."

Following direction from the Supreme Court, the CBI formally began probe into a case of alleged forgery registered by the Delhi police, concerning a document which showed the year of birth of Chief Justice of India A S Anand as 1934 as against Government documents recording the same as 1936.