Man passes ‘derogatory’ remarks against judges, Madras High Court warns of jail if apology not tendered

What happened that led to contempt?

• The previous bench, in its 2019 order, while dismissing the plea of the litigant, noted and highlighted that he had adopted similar tactics with more than 20 Judges of this court and had ensured that they had recused themselves from hearing his cases.
• Subsequently, a contempt petition was listed before a bench of Justices P N Prakash and Justice R N Manjula, who framed charges in their October 2021 order, considering the conduct of the litigant.
• Later, the matter was placed before the bench comprising Justices M S Ramesh and V Lakshminarayanan, who took note of a proceeding of 2017 where Surana made highly derogatory and scandalous allegations against the then bench, and claimed the Madras High Court had committed “genocide” and “crime against humanity”.

• The bench, in its July 2025 order, also recorded that when Surana appeared before them, he reiterated the very same allegations against the judges and the court.
• The replies of the litigant suggest that he has no regret and reiterated his earlier stand and attempted to justify the allegations made by him.
• The court found that the litigant’s act amounted to criminal contempt and tended to scandalise the court and interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings.

‘Tender unconditional apology or face jail’

The high court examined the previous development in the case and made the following observations:

• Despite the observations and findings recorded by this court from time to time in the earlier orders and the framing of specific charges against him in the July 2025 order, Surana has continued to make similar derogatory and scandalous allegations even in the present proceedings.
• The litigant has not shown any inclination to withdraw the statements in his reply before this court.
• On the contrary, he has taken a stand calling upon the bench to tender an unconditional apology to him, withdraw the contempt proceedings and recuse from hearing any matter in which he is a party.
• The tenor of the reply statement is wholly inappropriate and reflects a continued attempt to scandalise the institution and interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings.
• The tenor and language used in his reply statement show that Surana has not expressed any regret or offered any apology for his earlier statements.

• The litigant has been given sufficient opportunity to respond to the charges, but he has reiterated his earlier stand and attempted to justify the allegations made by him, and even asked for an unconditional apology.
• The repeated making of scandalous allegations against the court and the Judges, coupled with the use of extreme and unwarranted expressions in the course of judicial proceedings, amounts to scandalising the court.
• This act of the litigant interferes with the due course of judicial proceedings and the administration of justice.
• The charges framed against the contemnor are proved.
• The unconditional apology should clearly express genuine regret and contain an undertaking that he will not make any such allegations or statements in the future.
• The affidavit of unconditional apology shall be filed on or before the next date of hearing
• If the contemnor fails to file the apology within the given time, he will have to serve one month in jail.
• The matter is next listed to be heard in March.