Comedy of---------

When somebody makes an attempt to influence an honest judge, he has three options:

1. Refuse to hear the case

2. Consider the matter; and if on merits it deserves to be decided in favour of the person who tried to influence, transfer the case. But if on merit, matter has to be decided against the person, decide.

3. Expose the person; don't hear the matter but initiate contempt proceedings.

I know from my own experience and experience of my friends that usually the first option is exercised by most of the judges. It is because somehow, judges believe that power of contempt should be exercised sparingly. However, it is debatable.

This difficulty is suffered usually by new judges because after sometime at the bench, people know whether a judge is approachable or not.

In my view, justice Raghupati was wrong to publicly disclose only a part of information. Either he should have kept mum and decided the matter on merits, or he should have recused himself without disclosing reasons. When he disclosed that he was being approached, he should have initiated contempt proceedings. I do not understand why did he write a letter to chief justice of Madras. After all, it was not an administrative matter.
But once a letter had been received by chief justice why did he forward it to chief justice of India. Prima-facie a matter of contempt had been brought to his notice.

Chief justice of Madras high court had ample powers to initiate contempt proceedings.
In my view, the chief justice of india could have not proceeded in the matter. But why did he say that Raghupati had not mentioned the name of any minister, when actually he had mentioned rajas name.
Lot of explaining has to be done by many.