The conduct of the judge of the special court for Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act cases in Chitradurga district in issuing non-bailable warrant (NBW) against Shivamurthy Murugha Sharanaru, seer of Murugarajendra Bruhan Mutt, “amounts to contempt of court for blatantly violating High Court’s orders”, observed the High Court of Karnataka on Tuesday.
The High Court also questioned the conduct of the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP), attached to the Chitradurga special court for filing a ‘frivolous and mischievous’ memo before the special court stating that the “seer is not appearing before the Special Court and the High Court had not permitted his appearance through video conference and sought issuance of NBW (VC).”
“It is not understandable how the SPP filed such a memo when the High Court, while granting bail to the seer on November 8, had restricted the seer from entering Chitradurga till completion of the trial and had specfically allowed him to appear before the special court through VC,” the High Court observed.
The High Court also questioned how the judge of the special court conducted the trial or proceedings on Monday (November 20) for securing the appearance of the seer based on SPP’s memo and issued NBW when the High Court since June 19, 2023 had directed the special court to defer all the proceedings against the seer till the High Court decided seer’s pleas against continuation of criminal proceedings.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna made these observations while hearing applications filed on behalf of the seer questioning the legality of issuance of NBW.
“The question is, not whether the accused is XYZ..., it is the orders passed by the High Court that is disobeyed in a manner that would become contempt of the orders,” the High Court said.
“If the direction [of the High Court] is that he [seer] shall not enter Chitradurga, it is ununderstandable how a NBW is issued securing the presence of the accused at the special court at Chitradurga. It is this action of the Presiding Officer [judge of the special court] that does not inspire confidence of the High Court and to say the least, is preposterous,” Justice Nagaprasanna observed.
Pointing out that the orders passed by the High Court were “thrown to the winds” by the judge of the special court, the High Court said that such “an act, on the face of it, subversive of judicial discipline.”
“To sensationalize a sensational issue should not become the order of the day, particularly of the concerned courts hearing such cases. The Courts are governed by constitutional morality and not public morality. This principle is also given a go-bye by the Presiding Officer [judge of the speicial court] which appears to be in an attempt to remain in limelight of a sensational issue,” the High Court observed.
Enquiry against SPP
Meanwhile, the High Court directed the State Public Prosecutor to enquire about the bonafides of the SPP attached to the special court, Chitradurga, SPP’s conduct in filing the memo completely contrary to the orders passed by the High Court, fix accountability in this regard, and submit a report to the High Court.
Summons records
Also, the High Court directed its registry to secure all the records of the two criminal cases against the seer from the Chitradurga special court immediately “as the special court conducted itself in a manner, which would become an act of contumacious contempt.”
