This young lawyer of the Madras high court Mr.Mathan Kumar is under suspension, barred by the Tamilnadu Bar Council from appearing in any court of law, for the past 8 months.

What crime did he commit ? 1380289_1385742168332827_2024783577_n

His client Mrs.Lakshmi approached him stating that she and 6 others aged between 35 and 70 years, were attacked by a gang of land-grabbers (who had nexus with the local police). When she was admitted to the government hospital at Villupuram, the police instead of protecting the victims, instigated the assailants to attack the victims once again in the hospital itself, so as to make them leave the hospital, and thus avoid registration of an FIR. However since Lakshmi had suffered head-injuries, she could not be discharged despite police pressure. So the police brought the actual assailants also, made them apply liquid kumkum on their clothes to feign blood, and got them also admitted to the hospital. Based on each of the 2 the hospital admissions police registered the mandatory FIR’s, but assigned a previous crime number to the assailant’s version and a subsequent crime number to Lakshmi’s version, with a view to falsely implicate Lakshmi and her relatives. They then went to the extent of advising the victims namely Lakshmi, etc to secure an anticipatory bail, failing which they threatened that they would have to arrest them. Under the pretext of helping them, they sent one of lakshmi’s relatives to meet the Public Prosecutor of Villupuram district Ms.PonSiva, who ordered his junior Mr.Selvakumar to file an anticipatory bail petition, for all 7 victims.


Public Prosecutor PonSiva

522ab959-9096-4d71-a26b-112540f51888 (1)

Since none of the 7 victims were aware of this conspiracy to file an anticipatory bail, it was filed without the signature of even one of the 7 petitioners, both in the petition as well as the memo of appearance, in violation of repeated orders of High Court judges Mr.Karpagavinayagam in 2003 and PR.Shivakumar in 2009. Yet due to PP Mr.PonSiva’s pressure, the petition passed scrutiny and was numbered as Crl MP 5721/14 of Sessions Court Villupuram.


In both the bail petition as well as the Memorandum of Appearance (vakalatnama), the 79 year-old, 3rd petitioner Mr.Kannaiyyan was shown as a 30 year-old.



The 53 year old, 4th petitioner Mr.Raji was shown as a 28 year-old, and the 35 year-old, 5th petitioner Mr.Jayaraman was shown as a 25 year-old.



The 40 year-old, 7th petitioner Mrs.Lakshmi was shown as a 27 year-old.



When the Sessions Judge Mr.Krishnamurthy heard the case on 5.8.14, Public Prosecutor Mr.PonSiva’s junior Mr.Selvakumar had argued (as per the court’s order) that all the 7 petitioners are minors, and that the victims were discharged from hospital, and that anticipatory bail was hence sought. PP Mr.PonSiva  representing the police did not open his mouth and the Sessions judge held that though discharge of the accused was not a reason for grant of anticipatory bail, he was still granting anticipatory bail. 


Based on this order, the petitioner’s were made to surrender and undergo the ordeal of complying with the conditions imposed by the court, namely to appear before the very same policemen who were tormenting them, at 10 AM as well as 5 PM every day (leaving their occupation), despite their never having sought bail in the 1st place.

Wedding - Copy

Krishnamurthy    District Judge

It was also brought to light that, apart from such collusive orders between the Police and the PP, district judge Krishnamurthy was habitually passing orders claiming that, (A) “petitioner’s are minor’s”, (B) “victims have been discharged from hospital” and that (C) discharge of the injured cannot only be the ground for anticipatory bail”, and these orders make it abundantly clear that the District & Sessions judge Mr.Krishnamurthy does not hear either the advocate for petitioners or the Public Prosecutor, but issues such orders without hearing any one. In fact, during his entire tenure of over 2 years, he has passed thousands of such orders, for extraneous considerations, some of which are published hereunder,






Hence, Mrs.Lakshmi, filed a petition in the Madras High Court bearing Crl OP number 30502/14, seeking action against the District Judge, the PP & the police, all 3 of whom were impleaded, as respondents. Lakshmi had also sought action against the land-grabbers, besides protection to her life and property. This case was listed and heard by several judges, and none of the 3 respondent’s filed any written reply for over 5 months. When it came up before a judge called Mr.PN.Prakash on 7.4.15Mr.Mathan Kumar, requested me to represent him, and when I appeared in court PN.Prakash started to misbehave with me and reserved judgment, without hearing the case either on facts or on law. So I reported the entire sequence of events that transpired in court to Chief Justice Mr.Sanjay Kishan Kaul, by way of a 3 and a half page letter on the very next day (8.4.15), and expressly explained the motive and hatred that Mr.PN.Prakash had towards me, and sought appropriate action against PN.Prakash.

scan0001 (2)



Having reserved judgment on 7.4.15, it appears that, on 10.4.15, Mr.PN.Prakash noticed that the signature of Mr.Mathan Kumar was absent on the memo of appearance (vakalatnama), although it contained the signature of the petitioner Mrs.Lakshmi, which was duly attested by the local central government notary. Since Mathan was a raw junior, he omitted to append his signature, unfamiliar with the format and the fact that the Villupuram counsel had utilised a magistrate court’s memo for a high court case, by scoring out the court name.


So Mr.PN.Prakash issued a memo to the Assistant Registrar of the criminal section calling for an explanation from the examining clerk who passed the case. The AR in turn, issued a memo to the Appeal Examiner Mr.Mahadevan seeking his explanation, on the same day. scan0002 (2)

Pursuant thereto, an explanation was secured on 16.4.15, stating that, when the papers were presented on 14.11.14, Mr.Mathan Kumar pressurized him to pass the same immediately, and that he had hence failed to notice his missing signature, and that whenever he was assigned cases filed by my “associates”, he was pressurized to pass them without returning them, that he was being intimidated with dire consequences, and that he is scared of us.

scan0003 (2)

scan0005 (2)

Mr.PN.Prakash, then got the case listed “FOR BEING MENTIONED”, on 16.4.15, although no one had sought such ‘mentioning’, and directed the impleadment of the counsel who had allegedly filed the ‘FAKE-BAIL PETITION’ in the lower court, namely Mr.Selvakumar (junior of the PP Mr.Pon Siva). Prakash, also summoned the petitioner Mrs.Lakshmi to appear in court on 22.4.15Mr.Mathan Kumar in turn filed a fresh MoA (memo of appearance) containing his signature, as well as the attested signature of the petitioner Mrs.Lakshmi, and also a separate Memo stating that it is our practise that whenever the signature of the petitioner is obtained in our absence, we insist that it is notarized, and only then do we file it, and that this is a unique practise being followed by us to ensure authenticity, and that the absence of the counsel’s signature was a mere omission. 


Ordinarily the matter would have ended there, but Mr.PN.Prakash adjourned the case after summer vacation, not before yet again spewing venom and misbehaving in court. During the interaction, I reiterated that he was baying for my blood, solely because I had secured a stay of trial and a resultant direction for a police probe into the bribes allegedly paid to one Mr.Ramasamy who was the district judge trying the infamous Sankararaman murder case, in which he (PN.Prakash) was a defence counsel for the notorious contract-killers namely Appu & Kathiravan, and that he was wreaking vengeance to quench his communal bellicosity. But he was unwilling to listen, emboldened by the fact that Sanjay Kaul had closed my 4-page complaint claiming that no action could be taken thereupon.


On 4.8.15, Prakash pronounced a judgment justifying the use of the readymade printed forms to issue bail orders, stating that India is not USA or UK, and hailed the district judge Shri.R.Krishnamurthy  as an Ashtavadani. Prakash further claimed that he was suspecting the bonafides of Lakshmi’s petition, as a ‘damocles sword’ over the sessions judge’s head.

AI107 (2)

PN.Prakash – Judge Madras High Court

Prakash ruled that,   Every quarrel between an advocate and an appeal examiner while numbering a case cannot result in contempt action. After all an advocate is also working under stress and many a time an appeal examiner also give pinpricks, which will annoy even a calm counsel. The case of Mr.Manikandan Vathan Chettiar and Mr.Mathan Kumar is an exception. It is their habit to file such petitions and ask for omnibus prayers.     


PN.Prakash went on to quote a series of passages from the judgment (WP 19894/11) in the Sankararaman murder bribe-tapes scandal involving his ex-client Jayendra Saraswathi who paid bribes for securing an acquittal in the Sankararaman murder case, and in which case PN.Prakash himself was the lead advocate for the killers. These paragraphs had been originally aimed at intimidating the poor widow Mrs.Padma W/o deceased Sankararaman, from pursuing the allegations of bribery.


Mrs.Padma, widow of a brahmin priest Sankararaman who was murdered in the Lord VaradarajaPerumal temple

Prakash summarized his 22 page judgment as follows (Click for full judgment),



PN.Prakash did not stop with this. He took up as many as 3 more unconnected pending cases, in which Mr.Mathan Kumar was counsel on record, and directed institution of disciplinary action by the bar council against us, in each one of them. Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul merrily posted the criminal contempt cases before specially constituted benches which summoned us for hearing. It did not matter to them that in bail cases in Tamilnadu, PP’s and district judges are purchased by rapists and child murderers, so much so that even in heinous rape-cum-murder cases of minor girls etc, bail is granted on the plea that the PP has not objected to bail.



This was followed by applying pressure upon the bar council chairman Mr.Selvam (who is believed to be a quack), and who is an accused in several criminal cases, to pass an order prohibiting us from practising law. 







Curiously enough, section 6 (1) (d) under which the prohibitory order was issued reads as follows,


All of this was pre-planned to prevent the truth as to who (which judge of which court, and which lawyer) received bribes to acquit the accused in the Sankararaman murder case.

In toto, as between 27.7.15 & 27.8.15, within a span of 1 month, PN.Prakash took up as many as 6 cases, and instituted 2 criminal contempt proceedings and issued 4 directions to the bar council to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Madan Kumar and me. In none of these 6 cases has a single accusation been levelled against me, and neither the bar council, nor the Madras High Court has the spine to conduct even a single hearing for the past 11 months.

In other words Sanjay Kishan Kaul wants to indefinitely keep us out of the courts, so that we do not demand to know the truth into who paid how much bribes to whom, as disclosed in this conversation,

But why is Sanjay Kishan Kaul interested in concealing the bribes ?

What has Sanjay Kishan Kaul to do with the Sankararaman murder trial ?

Why should Mathan Kumar be kept under suspension, when he has nothing to do with the Sankararaman murder case ?




Share Button