JUDGMENT K.N. BASHA, J. ( 1. ) THESE two writ petitions are connected with the earlier writ petition in W.P. No. 19894 of 2011 and hence, these petitions are also posted along with the said numbered writ petition "for maintainability" before this specially constituted Bench as per the Orders of the Hon'ble The Chief Justice. ( 2. ) BOTH the writ petitions along with miscellaneous petitions have been filed by S. Padma, wife of the deceased/Sankararaman, and Kannan, son-in-law of the deceased/Sankararaman respectively with similar and identical prayer of seeking the relief of issuance of writ of continuing mandamus issuing direction to constitute a SIT (Special Investigation Team) to investigate into the allegations of bribery of trial Judge, his wife, wit- Postal Page No. 148 nesses, etc., and manipulation of trial proceedings in the murder case in S.C. No. 94 of 2005. ( 3. ) AT the outset, it is to be stated that the petitioners enclosed two complaints one dated 28.9.2011 said to have been given by advocate Ms.Vijayalakshmi and another complaint dated 30.9.2011 said to have been given by S.Padma and there is no complaint or petition preferred by Kannan. A perusal of the said papers annexed along with the writ petition as typed-set reveals that the allegations are revolving around the alleged conversation of Audio conference call telecasted through the Prime Time TV purported to be between the present trial Judge in S.C. No. 94 of 2005 and one of the main accused in the said case., and we have elaborately dealt with the said allegation while disposing of the writ petition in W.P. No. 19894 of 2011 filed by one Mr.P.Sundararajan, advocate, regarding the trial of S.C. No. 94 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge (Chief Judge), Pondicherry. Therefore, it is clear that the present two petitions have been filed as a consequential petitions to the writ petition in W.P. No. 19894 of 2011 with the additional prayer to constitute a SIT (Special Investigation Team) to investigate the allegations of bribery of the trial Judge and others and an interim prayer seeking direction to the appropriate uniformed force to provide protection to the family of the petitioners till the disposal of the writ petitions and also with other further interim prayers of staying all further proceedings in S.C. No. 94 of 2005 and to initiate punitive action against the Registrar (Vigilance), Madras High Court, for his unwillingness to collect the evidence offered to him in the bribery scam. ( 4. ) IN view of the disposal of the writ petition in W.P. No. 19894 of 2011, we are of the considered view that all these petitions filed containing unwarranted remarks impleading the Hon'ble The Chief Justice of this Chartered High Court have become infructuous. ( 5. ) FIRST of all, these two petitions are not maintainable on the sole ground of not impleading the relevant, necessary and proper parties. Secondly, the relief sought for by the petitioners has already been sought for by the petitioner in W.P.No. 19894 of 2011 and in respect of the said writ petition, the same counsel, namely, Mr. V. Manikandan Vathan Chettiar, is the counsel on record and he is also well-aware about the stay granted in that writ petition staying all further proceedings in S.C. No. 94 of 2005 pending on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge (Chief Judge), Pondicherry, as per the orders of this Court dated 25.8.2011. ( 6. ) IT is relevant to note that the Registry has rightly raised the question of maintainability on the following grounds in W.P. (SR) No. 101554 of 2011 : "7. Cause title needs clarification. 2. Prayer needs clarification. IT may be stated, how the relief is sought for against the Chief Justice of High Court 3. Copies of document filed in typed set appears as not relevant to the relief (Page No. 6)". Cause title needs clarification. 2. Prayer needs clarification. IT may be stated, how the relief is sought for against the Chief Justice of High Court 3. Copies of document filed in typed set appears as not relevant to the relief (Page No. 6)". However, the learned counsel resubmitted the papers with the following endorsement: "Please read the affidavit and the note appended to the petition before making such flimsy returns." The above said endorsement makes it abundantly clear that the learned counsel for the petitioner has not answered or clarified the quarries raised by the Registry. ( 7. ) IN the affidavits filed in support of these writ petitions, the narration of facts regarding conducting of trial in S.C. No. 94 of 2005 are stated. IN the earlier writ petition in W.P. No. 19894 of 2011, we have dealt with the conduct of the trial and completion of examination of ? 95 witnesses including the material witnesses, namely, P.W.1/Padma, wife of the deceased and others, even prior to the posting of the present trial Judge. Regarding the tape conversation, action has been initiated by the Registrar (Vigilance) and appropriate directions were also issued by us to day in the said petition. ( 8. ) INSOFAR as the maintainability of these writ petitions, viz., impleading the Hon'ble The Chief Justice as a party respondent and praying for constituting a SIT to investigate the allegations of bribery of trial Judge, his wife, witnesses, etc.,. the said prayer itself is not maintainable. The entire allegation, being made against the trial Judge, who is one of the senior District Judges, without material available as on date solely on the basis of suspicion is not only unwarranted but also scandalous. Article 235 of the Constitution of India clearly empowers the High Court, supervisory control over the subordinate judiciary. Therefore, constituting a SIT amounts to giving such power of superintendence to an outside agency. The said power, namely, appointment, posting, transfer and disciplinary power cannot be delegated to any other authority, and if it is delegated, the same is unconstitutional as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chand Paliwal AIR 1998 SC 1079 : (1998) 3 SCC 72 : 1999-I-LLJ-885 : (1998) 3 MLJ 11 . In the said decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court incorporated Article 235 of the Constitution of India which reads as hereunder: "235. Control over subordinate Courts The control over district Courts and Courts subordinate thereto including the posting and promotion of, and the grant of leave to, persons belonging to the judicial service of a State and holding any post inferior to the post of district judge shall be vested in the High Court, but nothing in this article shall be construed as taking away from any such person any right of appeal which he may have under the law regulating the conditions of his service or as authorising the High Court to deal with him otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of his service prescribed under such law." and held as follows: "3(5. This Article shows that the High Court has to exercise its administrative, judicial and disciplinary control over the members of the Judicial Service of the State. The word "control", referred to in this Article, is used in a comprehensive sense to include general superintendence of the working of the sub-ordinate Courts, disciplinary control over the Presiding Officers of the sub-ordinate Courts and to recommend the imposition of punishment of dismissal, removal and reduction in rank or compulsory retirement. "Control" would also include suspension of a manner of the Judicial Service for purposes of holding a disciplinary enquiry, transfer, confirmation and promotion." ( 9. ) IN the order in W.P. No. 19894 of 2011, the allegations made against the present trial Judge have been dealt with and appropriate directions have already been issued. The interim prayer sought for by the petitioners to give an interim direction to the appropriate uniformed force to provide police protection to their families can be considered only if the main writ petitions are maintainable. Further, the petitioners have not prayed for police protection before any of the police authorities and no police authority is impleaded as respondent. Apart from that no representation seeking police protection is ever made. Similar allegation is also made against the Public Prosecutor in the affidavit. However, the petitioners have not Postal Page No. 150 impleaded the Public Prosecutor in spite of making certain allegations against him. ( 10. Apart from that no representation seeking police protection is ever made. Similar allegation is also made against the Public Prosecutor in the affidavit. However, the petitioners have not Postal Page No. 150 impleaded the Public Prosecutor in spite of making certain allegations against him. ( 10. ) IT is an elementary principle of law that if allegations are made against a particular person personally, he should be impleaded as a respondent, without which no writ petition can be filed and even if filed, the same cannot be maintained. The learned counsel for the petitioners, having ten years of Bar experience, is not aware of the said elementary principle, which is required to be known to an advocate, who is practicing on the writ side in particular. ( 11. ) IT is very unfortunate and painful to note that the counsel on record allowed the petitioners to implead the Hon'ble The Chief Justice without noticing as to whether any material is available to substantiate the contentions raised in the affidavits. The petitioners, who are the wife and son-in-law of the deceased/ Sankararaman and who are not well-versed in the legal procedures seems to have signed the affidavits prepared by the learned counsel and they were used as tools to make unwarranted remarks against the Hon'ble The Chief Justice. IT is needless to state that the learned counsel, being an Officer of the Court, is duty bound to advise his clients from restraining them to make any baseless and unwarranted remarks against the Hon'ble The Chief Justice. ( 12. ) AT this juncture, we are constrained to state that the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contentions for impleading the Hon'ble The Chief Justice are not applicable to the facts of these cases. ( 13. ) THE decision in Pradyat Kumar Bose v. THE Hon 'ble Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court AIR 1956 SC 285 relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the facts of these cases as the issue involved in that case is against the dismissal order of the judicial officer. THErefore, the petitioner cannot place reliance on the said decision to implead the Hon'ble THE Chief Justice as respondent. ( 14. THErefore, the petitioner cannot place reliance on the said decision to implead the Hon'ble THE Chief Justice as respondent. ( 14. ) THE decision in Himansu Kumar Bose v. Jyoti Prokash Mitter AIR 1964 SC 1636 : 1966-II-LLJ-155 relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners herein is also not - helpful to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. ( 15. ) THE other decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners in E.H. Tippoo v. Hon 'ble C.J. of India AIR 1971 Cal 354 , U.P. Judicial Officers' Association v. Union of India (1994) 4 SCC 687 , High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chand Paliwal (supra) and U.P. Judicial Officers' Association v. Union of India (2002) 8 JT 133 are also not applicable to the facts of these cases. ( 16. ) AN Advocate, who is an Officer of the Court, is bound to respect the Court and maintain its dignity, decorum and majesty. Scandalizing the Court to implead the Hon'ble The Chief Justice as the respondent and making unwarranted remarks in the solemn affidavits of the petitioners at the advice of the learned counsel, would certainly amount to criminal contempt. For this proposition, the following decisions can be relied on: (A) The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in M.Y. Shareef and ANother v. The Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur and Others AIR 1955 SC 19 as hereunder: "It cannot be denied that a Section of the Bar is under an erroneous impression that when a counsel is acting in the interests of his client, or in accordance with his instructions he is discharging his legitimate duty to his client even when he signs an application or a pleading which contains matter scandalizing the Court. They think that when there is conflict between their obligations to the Court and their duty to the client, the latter prevails. They think that when there is conflict between their obligations to the Court and their duty to the client, the latter prevails. This misconception has to be rooted out by a clear and emphatic pronouncement, and we think it should be widely made known that counsel who sign applications or pleadings containing matter scandalizing the Court without reasonably satisfying themselves about the prima facie existence of adequate grounds there for, with a view to prevent or delay the course of justice, are themselves guilty of contempt of Court, and that it is no duty of a counsel to his client to take any interest-in such applications; on the other hand, his duty is to advise his client for refraining from making allegations of this nature in such applications." (emphasis supplied) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the same decision also observed as hereunder : "We have no doubt that whatever the learned Judges of the High Court did in this case, they did in the firm belief that the dignity of the Court had to be maintained and the members of the Bar, howsoever big or learned, cannot be allowed to scandalize the judges or to divert the course of justice by attempting to take a case out from one Bench to another Bench of the Court when they find that the Bench is expressing opinions seemingly adverse to their clients." (B) It is also relevant to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.K. Sundaram In Re. AIR 2001 SC 23 74 : (2001) 2 SCC 171 : 2000 (1) L.W. 26. In the said decision earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. DtC. Saxetia v. Hon 'ble the Chief Justice of India 1966 Crl.L.J. 3274 was referred to, wherein, after holding the contemnor as guilty of criminal contempt, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as hereunder : "Scandalizing the Court, therefore, would mean hostile criticism of Judges as Judges or judiciary. ANy personal attack upon a Judge in connection with the office he holds is dealt with under law of libel or slander. Yet defamatory publication concerning the Judge as a Judge brings the Court or Judges into contempt, a serious impediment to justice and an inroad on the majesty of justice. ANy personal attack upon a Judge in connection with the office he holds is dealt with under law of libel or slander. Yet defamatory publication concerning the Judge as a Judge brings the Court or Judges into contempt, a serious impediment to justice and an inroad on the majesty of justice. ANy caricature of a Judge calculated to lower the dignity of the Court would destroy, undermine or tend to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice or the majesty of justice." In the same decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court further observed as follows : "Dealing with the imputation that the then Chief Justice of India deliberately and willfully failed to perform his duties the three Bench Judge Bench further observed thus : "It tends to lower the dignity and authority of the Court and also sows seeds for persons with similar propensity to undermine the authority of the Court or the judiciary as a whole ; he crossed all boundaries of recklessness and indulged in wild accusations." (C) In yet another decision in Vishram Singh Taghubanshi v. State of U.P. AIR 2011 SC 2275 : LNIND 2011 SC 560: (2012) 1 MLJ (Crl) 419, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 16 held as follows: "16. The dangerous trend of making false allegations against judicial officers and humiliating them requires to be curbed with heavy hands, otherwise the judicial system itself would collapse. The Bench and the Bar have to avoid unwarranted situations on trivial issues that hamper the cause of justice and are in the interest of none. "Liberty of free expression is not to be confounded or confused with licence to make unfounded allegations against any institution, much less the Judiciary". A Lawyer cannot be a mere mouthpiece of his client and cannot associate himself with his client maligning the reputation of judicial officers merely because his client failed to secure the desired order from the said officer. A deliberate attempt to scandalise the Court which would shake the confidence of the litigating public in the system, would cause a very serious damage to the institution of judiciary. AN advocate in a profession should be diligent and his conduct should also be diligent and conform to the requirements of the law by which an advocate plays a vital role in the preservation of society and justice system. AN advocate in a profession should be diligent and his conduct should also be diligent and conform to the requirements of the law by which an advocate plays a vital role in the preservation of society and justice system. ANy violation of the principles of professional ethics by an advocate is unfortunate and unacceptable." (emphasis supplied) D. In yet another decision in O.P. Sharma v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana (2011)6 SCC 86 : LNIND 2011 SC 504, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: "The role and status of lawyers at the beginning of sovereign and democratic India is accounted as extremely vital in deciding that the nation's administration was to be governed by the rule of law. They were considered intellectuals amongst the elites of the country and social activists amongst the downtrodden. The role of lawyers in the framing of the Constitution needs no special mention. In a profession with such a vivid history it is regretful, to say the least, to witness instances of the nature of the present kind. Lawyers are the officers of the Court in the administration of justice. The Bench as well as the bar has to avoid unwarranted situations or trivial issues that hamper the cause of justice and are in no one's interest. A lawyer cannot be a mere mouthpiece of his client and cannot associate himself with his client in maligning the reputation of a judicial officer merely because his client failed to secure the desired order from the said officer. A deliberate attempt to scandalise the Court which would shake the confidence of the litigating public in the system and would cause a very serious damage to the name of the judiciary." (E) In the same decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to an earlier decision in Chetak Construction Ltd. v. Om Prakash AIR 1998 SC 1855 : (1998) 4 SCC 577 , wherein it was held as hereunder: "16. Indeed, no lawyer or litigant can be permitted to browbeat the Court or malign the presiding officer with a view to get a favourable order. Judges shall not be able to perform their duties freely and fairly if such activities were permitted and in the result administration of justice would become a casualty and the rule of law would receive a setback. The Judges are obliged to decide cases impartially and without any fear or favour. Judges shall not be able to perform their duties freely and fairly if such activities were permitted and in the result administration of justice would become a casualty and the rule of law would receive a setback. The Judges are obliged to decide cases impartially and without any fear or favour. Lawyers and litigants cannot be allowed to "terrorize" or "intimidate" Judges with a view to "secure" orders which they want. This is basic and fundamental and no civilised system of administration of justice can permit it." (F) The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions cited supra make it crystal clear that scandalising the Court and the hostile criticism of Judges is termed as diverting the due course of justice and signing the petition filed based on such affidavits in support of the petition amounts to an act of criminal contempt. ( 17. ) IN the light of the above discussions, we are of the view that the objections raised by the Registry regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions are sustainable and no direction can be issued to the Registry to number the writ petitions. ( 18. ) ACCORDINGLY, these W.P.(SR)Nos. 100792 and 101554 of 2011 and connected M.P.(SR)s are rejected. The other Miscellaneous Petition (SR) Nos.19029 to 19033 of 2012 filed on 21.2.2012 subsequent to the reservation of orders in these matters which were tagged along with these petitions by the Registry, are liable to be rejected and accordingly, rejected. Petitions dismissed.