Judge misused powers to settle scores with DSP, probe ordered by Madras High Court finds

In July, an altercation broke out between a customer, Murugan, belonging to the Scheduled Caste, and the owner of a bakery in Walajabad, Sivakumar, the father-in-law of the judge’s former PSO, R Lokeshwaran, over an alleged stale cake. Police registered complaints from both sides in the Community Service Register. After the parties agreed to settle the matter amicably, complaints were closed the same day.

Allegedly suspecting that his former PSO had been spreading false information about him, Judge Chemmal asked the police to register an FIR against Lokeshwaran and his family under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. When the police hesitated, the judge orally warned of action. Then two FIRs were lodged — one against Parvathi’s family, the complainants, and another against the PSO’s side.

On September 4, the judge passed a suo motu externment order, under Section 10 of the SC/ST Act, forcing Lokeshwaran and others to stay away from Kancheepuram. Four days later, he summoned DSP M Sankar Ganesh, who had been assigned to investigate, and accused him of failing to arrest the bakery owner, and then ordered his remand under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act, which prescribes punishment for neglect of duty.

On September 9, the Madras HC intervened. Acting on a petition filed by the Kancheepuram SP, Justice Sathish Kumar quashed the remand order as “completely unwarranted.” He noted that courts cannot compel arrests, nor could they use suo motu powers in the manner exercised here without proper complaints or police reports. He also set aside the externment order, calling it inapplicable in the circumstances.

Justice Kumar also ordered Registrar (Vigilance) Jacintha Martin to conduct an inquiry into the judge’s conduct, including WhatsApp messages exchanged with senior police officers.

The report filed Tuesday said that the Judge had pressed the police to file cases against his former PSO and even leaned on a Food Safety Officer to raid the bakery owned by the PSO’s family. The inquiry also recorded complaints that the judge had taken coercive action against a local pharmacy, signalling a wider misuse of authority.

Additional Public Prosecutor K M D Muhilan had informed the court that statements of the SP, the DSP, the PSO, and the Food Safety Officer have been recorded — all of which supported the allegations. Justice Kumar, after reviewing the evidence, had concluded that the charges were not only credible but also showed an abuse of judicial power. While trial court judges have wide discretion under law, the inquiry found that such discretion cannot be weaponised to settle personal scores, Justice Kumar had said. “Appropriate disciplinary steps should be taken at the earliest opportunity,” Justice Kumar had written. With the inquiry report now before the Vigilance and Transfer Committees, Judge Chemmal faces disciplinary action and likely removal from Kancheepuram

From the homepage

Supreme Court hints at allowing green crackers in Delhi-NCR this Diwali on trial basis

Bihar’s economy needs jobs and investments, but can it afford pre-poll sops?

Gaza ceasefire goes into effect, what happens next?