Lawyers are expected to maintain a sense of respect and decorum after logging into virtual courts irrespective of whether their cameras are switched on or off, the Madras High Court has said while convicting a lawyer found to be canoodling with a woman during virtual court and sentencing him to two weeks of simple imprisonment.
Justices P.N. Prakash and A.A. Nakkiran said the act of the advocate (since suspended) R.D . Santhana Krishnan, 49, amounted to contempt of court though he had claimed that he was not aware of his camera remaining switched on when he was involved in the erotic act with his neighbour who was the age of his daughter.
After taking note that the Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department (CB-CID) had registered a separate criminal case against the advocate for having exploited the woman, who was living in penury, by offering her money and other valuables, the judges took a lenient view while deciding the quantum of sentence to be imposed on him for contempt.
Since he had surrendered and had undergone 34 days of imprisonment, the judges ordered his release on payment of fine amount of ₹6,000 alone.
The judges recorded their appreciation for State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohammed Jinnah and Additional Public Prosecutor R. Muniyapparaj for assisting the court in the suo motu contempt proceedings.
“We should not lose sight of the fact that Santhana Krishnan is 50 and even as per his own affidavit, he has a daughter who is of the same age of ‘X’ (victim). Had this aspect weighed in his mind at the relevant point of time, perhaps, he would not have exploited ‘X’ by taking advantage of her penury,” the Division Bench wrote.
Though the erotic act appeared to be consensual, the judges said her plight had disturbed them a lot since she had been put to shame and mental trauma due to the video clip of the act having been circulated on the social media.
They took on record that the advocate had offered ₹4 lakh in compensation to the woman. Stating that the lawyer too had lost his name and honour in society apart from having undergone incarceration for 34 days, the judges quoted from the Bible wherein Jesus had said: “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”
Justice Prakash said: “Though we are too small to play Jesus, yet, one cannot be oblivious to the fact that there could be many a Santhana Krishnan in various walks of life who are lucky in not getting captured on a camera.”
