The Madras High Court declined to quash a criminal case against a Chennai college teacher, emphasizing that campus protests by teaching staff are serious and cannot be overlooked with a mere apology letter. Justice G Jayachandran, in a June 13 order, rejected the teacher’s apology and upheld the ongoing criminal proceedings.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court highlighted the severity of campus violence perpetrated by teaching staff, stressing that such actions cannot be simply overlooked. The court’s decision came while addressing a petition by a Chennai college teacher seeking to quash a criminal case registered against him for protesting inside the college campus.
On June 13, Justice G Jayachandran delivered the judgment, firmly rejecting the teacher’s attempt to have the criminal proceedings nullified. The teacher had submitted an apology letter, hoping it would suffice to end the legal action against him. However, the court was not convinced by this gesture.
“Campus violence by teaching staff is a grave matter that cannot be forgiven merely with an apology letter.”
-the Court stated.
This pointed remark underlined the court’s stance on the gravity of the offense committed by the petitioner.
The High Court emphasized that an apology letter cannot be used as a means to evade legal accountability.
“The petitioner cannot circumvent legal procedures by merely offering an apology letter after engaging in violent protests inside the college campus.”
-the Court further said.
The case stemmed from an incident where the teacher, along with others, engaged in a protest within the college premises, which escalated into violence. The institution subsequently filed a complaint, leading to the registration of a criminal case. The petitioner sought relief from the court, arguing that his apology should be sufficient to quash the proceedings.
ALSO READ: Uttarakhand High Court Considers Relocating Bench to IDPL Campus in Rishikesh
Justice Jayachandran’s order underscores the judiciary’s intolerance towards violence within educational institutions, especially when committed by those in positions of authority and responsibility. By refusing to quash the criminal case, the court has sent a clear message about the importance of maintaining discipline and legality within educational environments.
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by TV Swaminathan, a teacher at Pachaiyappa’s Trust in Chennai, seeking to quash criminal prosecution against him and other staff members. The case stemmed from an incident in 2019 when Swaminathan, along with several other teaching and non-teaching staff, was booked by the city police following a complaint from the interim administrator of the Trust, a retired High Court judge.
According to the complaint, Swaminathan and the other staff members had staged protests on the college campus during a committee meeting chaired by the interim administrator. This administrator had been appointed by the High Court to oversee and streamline the administration of the Trust-run institute. The protests led to charges being filed against Swaminathan and his colleagues.
During the hearing, Justice Jayachandran stated-
“An apology affidavit cannot be considered to dismiss prosecution for such an offence. The Criminal Procedure Code allows for bargaining, pleading guilty, or compounding. Bypassing these procedures and quashing criminal prosecution based on an apology letter for campus violence by teaching staff is not in the interest of justice. Therefore, the quash petition is rejected.”
Justice Jayachandran emphasized the importance of following proper legal procedures, noting that bypassing these procedures with an apology letter would not serve the interest of justice. He granted Swaminathan the liberty to seek relief by either resorting to plea bargaining or by compounding. Justice Jayachandran granted the petitioner the liberty to go before the trial court to seek relief by either resorting to plea bargain or by compounding.
Advocate N Elayaraja represented Swaminathan, while Government Advocate S Udayakumar appeared for the State.
This case highlights the challenges faced by educational institutions in maintaining order and the role of the judiciary in upholding legal standards in such situations. The dismissal of the quash petition serves as a reminder that legal shortcuts, such as affidavits of apology, cannot replace the formal procedures laid out in the Criminal Procedure Code.
ALSO READ: Delhi HC Issues Contempt Notice to DCF Over Tree Cutting Violation at JNU Campus
The petitioner’s legal team, led by Advocate N Elayaraja, will now need to consider the next steps, potentially involving plea bargaining or compounding, as advised by the Court. The involvement of a Government Advocate also signifies the State’s interest in ensuring that the matter is resolved in accordance with the law.
