Suriya won't face contempt case, but HC calls his statement unnecessary, unwarranted

On September 13, Suriya had put out a statement against NEET after back to back suicides of medical aspirants in the state.
Suriya won't face contempt case, but HC calls his statement unnecessary, unwarranted
Suriya won't face contempt case, but HC calls his statement unnecessary, unwarranted

The Madras High Court may have decided not to initiate contempt proceedings against actor Suriya for his comments against the judiciary but the principal bench on Friday made it clear that they were unhappy with the actor's comments on the judiciary. The court described the actor's utterances as 'absolutely unnecessary or even unwarranted for being ignorant of the manner in which the entire judiciary of this State has served the interest of its citizens during the pandemic'.

On September 13, Suriya had put out a statement against NEET after back to back suicides of medical aspirants in the state. He likened NEET to 'Manu Dharma' tests and said they snatch opportunities from students and end up killing them. He alleged that the exam was a life sentence to parents who lose their  children to the system and in context to the judiciary her added that - "Courts, which are delivering justice through video-conferencing due to life-threatening coronavirus fears, are ordering students to fearlessly go and write the exams."

"Any such statement could have been avoided in a much more sober way, instead of an accusing tone, which though trivial in nature has raised a storm in a tea cup. A person in public life enjoys a position because of the responsibility with which he conducts himself and not by making. other human activities look small for perceptibly no valid reason, but we would not say anything further, as we find that the NEET Examinations and the dispute around it was not even a subject matter of the Courts in the State of Tamil Nadu. A self-righteous person should himself be humble enough to acknowledge the contribution of others," the bench consisting of Chief Justice---  and judge Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy said.

The court pointed out that information put out by people occupying public spaces must be vetted or it could spread prejudices. 

"Reliability of sources of information should always be observed when people occupying a public space speak on issues that deserve to be based on ground realities, or else any statement bereft of foundational facts may be fraught with a danger of spreading prejudices and adding to the ignorance of the public at large. Speculations and narratives with embellishments may be a form of advertisement, but it should not be an off the cuff depiction. This unnecessarily results in relentless interrogation on platforms with accusations of over-sensitiveness, even though an opinion expressed genuinely might have a grain of truth in it," said the bench.

And while the court encouraged dissent, the court maintained that trivial issues should not be magnified.

"There are moments in history when people are remembered of their contributions towards the human world and the present pandemic, with all its adversities, is an opportunity that may be godsent for all stakeholders in this vast civilization to perform and give to their fellow citizens that is wanting most, instead of standing against each other," said the bench. It is good to form opinions and dissents to evolve a purer thought, but trivials should not be allowed to spread as if they were wildfire."

Related Stories

No stories found.
The News Minute
www.thenewsminute.com