Madras High Court praised a Madurai judge for courage after lawyers allegedly disrupted her courtroom. Justice L. Victoria Gowri quoted Margaret Thatcher: “If you want something said, ask a man; if you want something done, ask a woman”.
Madras High Court praises young Madurai judge for courage after courtroom disruption
In a recent observation, the Madras High Court commended a young judge at the Madurai Bench for demonstrating courage and unwavering commitment to judicial duty, after her courtroom was allegedly disrupted by a group of lawyers during a remand-related matter.
Justice L. Victoria Gowri, while hearing the matter, highlighted former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s view on women’s resolve and quoted her as saying,
“If you want something said, ask a man; if you want something done, ask a woman”
The court said the incident showed a judicial officer who, regardless of the Bar members’ age, rank, or experience, did not take the path of convenience, but instead followed conviction.
It further noted that the judge faced a tense atmosphere and competing pressures yet did not give in to expediency or retreat into silence.
Instead, the court stated, she acted with firm determination to uphold the authority and dignity of the institution she represents. It described what some may consider stubbornness as principled firmness, calling it an essential trait in the performance of judicial functions.
The order dated April 30 added that the strength of the justice delivery system is not sustained only by statutes and precedents, but also by the character of those who apply them.
It emphasized that institutional integrity is protected and public confidence maintained through such unwavering commitment, especially by officers at the start of their judicial journey.
The dispute arose from an incident on January 19. The judicial officer rose for the day at around 6:05 pm after a lawyer brought a plea relating to the alleged illegal detention of his client by the police.
The record stated that, after examining the matter and without rejecting it, the judge directed the Station House Officer (SHO) of the concerned police station to appear before the court at about 10:30 am the next day.
The matter was also ordered to be listed as the first case.
The judge told the High Court that, despite her directions, the lawyer and his juniors entered the open court and shouted at court staff, according to CCTV footage.
Earlier, On January 20, she claimed that when the matter was called, neither the petitioner nor the counsel appeared, and the matter was therefore adjourned. Later, around 10:35 am, the police submitted a remand requisition that listed the same person referred to earlier as the accused.
According to the judge, even after she clarified that a petition under Section 100 (search for persons wrongfully confined) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 had already been registered, listed, called, and passed over due to non-representation, the petitioners allegedly continued to interrupt proceedings.
She said they insisted the accused should not be remanded, arguing that doing so would make the Section 100 petition infructuous.
The judge also stated that, despite repeated instructions that submissions be made sequentially, her court proceedings were disrupted collectively and were apparently aimed at overwhelming the court. She alleged she was forced to leave the dais, go to chambers, and then resume work, but that interruptions continued afterward. She further informed the High Court that the disruptions affected approximately 160 pending cases where witnesses were present.
Because of the disturbance, the judge said she had to defer the remand proceedings and take up other court business.
ALSO READ:Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Two Madras High Court Judges for Permanent Appointments
The High Court recorded that the officer remained unmoved by attempts whether overt or subtle to dilute institutional authority through compromise or conciliatory approaches. It stated that she chose instead to uphold the law’s majesty and the dignity of the judicial office she holds.
The court said her steadfast adherence to duty, marked by independence of mind and clarity of purpose, reflected the finest traditions of the judiciary functioning without fear or favour, and without affection or ill will.
Justice Gowri concluded that in a time when institutions are frequently tested, officers of this character reinforce the very foundations of the justice delivery system.