052-NLR-NLR-V-18-In-re-VANNY-AIYAR.pdf
( 180 )
1915.
Present : Pereira J.
In re VANNY AIYAB.
IIS—P. C. Point Pedro, 3,866,
Contempt of Court—Appearing m Court without removing hie shawl.
A Ceylon Court of Jusfeioa is a British Court of Justice, and,therefore, when a person eaten a Court here clad in aagreeable to British ideas and conceptions of respectful attire hecommits no contempt. It is only when the attire offends againstsuch ideas and conceptions that a question can arise as to whethera contempt was intended.
fjpHE loots appear from the judgment.
Talavaeingham, for appellant.—The appellant had no intentionof being disrespectful jto the Court. He was a priest, and he oaxnedressed ai his usual fashion. It was held in 3 Lor. J71 that appearingin Court with a shawl covering one's shoulders was not contempt ofCourt.
Cur, adv. wit.
February 22, 1915. Perkiba J.—
In this case a witness (Muttusamy Aiyar) appeals from an orderof the Magistrate fining him Us. 7.60 for contempt of Court. Itappears that the appellant appeared in Court without " removinghis shawl, ’’ and .the Magistrate thereupon promptly called on himto show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of Court.The appellant stated:#< Usually 1 come in this way. I bring two
shawls: one I put under my arm, and one on shoulder. ” TheMagistrate was not satisfied with this explanation and fined him forcontempt. The appellant says in the petition of appeal that whenquestioned by the Magistrate he immediately removed the shawl,and he further states that he is a Brahmin priest, and it is “ custom-ary for Brahmin priests of his class to have shawls on the shoulder,and they never remove them. ” The Magistrate has not informedthis Court whether the first statement, is .true or false. However,the statements are verified by affidavit, and I shall take no noticeof them. The simple question in the case is whether a personentering a Court of Justice in Ceylon with a shawl on his shoulderit»*o facto commits a contempt of Court. A Ceylon Court 5f Justiceis a British Court of Justice, and so long as a person enters a Courthere clad in a manner agreeable to British ideas and conceptions ofrespectful attire he commits no contempt. It is only when the
( 181 )
IMS.
attire offends against suoh ideas and conceptions that u^question can
arise as to whether a contempt was intended. I need only say that Ij.
think that these ideas and conceptions are less partial to naked shoul-ders than to shoulders becomingly covered.
In re VanityAiyar
A case similar to tire present occurred some years ago. It isreported at page 171 of Part m. of Lorensz’s Reports. There,
. according to the report, one Appasamy appeared in the Police Courtof Point Pedro with the upper part of his body completely coveredover with a shawl of white cloth, and a large white umbrella underhis arm. The Magistrate required him to bans his shoulders andput tire umbrella down. He bared his shoulders partially and puthim umbrella down, but (as recorded by the Magistrate “ laughedin tire very face of the Court in so very markedly unbecoming andcontemptuous a manner that the Court considered it absolutelynecessary at once to commit him for contempt. ” The late Mr.Lorenss in arguing the appeal submitted to the Supreme Courtwhether it was " surprising that a man should laugh at such' anabsurd request in a Court of Justice, ” and he said that he regrettedbeing under the necessity of arguing such a point as that involvedin the case. In the course of the argument, Rowe C.J. observedthat when he was in Jaffna he saw several Tamil gentlemen inCourt in their muslin robes, and it never struek him that theyintended any disrespect to him, and he quashed the conviotionihaving made the caustic remark: “ It appears to me that if theseyoung men (meaning the Magistrates) me more careful about theirjudgments than of their dignity, much good will be the result. ” Ihave no hesitation in following this case, and I set aside the orderappealed from.
Set aside.