JUDGMENT : 1. When one enters the magnificent precincts of this illustrious Chartered High Court, he notices the statue of a man standing with two wheels on either side with a calf and a small child beneath each wheel, and a cow. He becomes anxious to know the significance as to why and for what purpose this statue is located near the entrance of the High Court. The statue is that of the ancient Chozha King, Manu Needhi Chozhan, also known as Elara, who ruled South India around 250 B.C. Legend is that, Manu Needhi Chozhan, who believed in even justice towards friends and foes, had hung a giant Bell in front of his palace and announced that anyone seeking justice could ring the bell and voice will be heard. One day, it so happened that a young calf had got crushed under the wheels of his chariot, in which his only son, young Prince Veedhividangan, was going around the city. The mother of the calf, which helplessly watched its little one die, walked to the palace gates and rang the huge bell, demanding justice from the king. The king came out and saw the cow, he learnt from his courtiers about the death of the young calf under the wheels of his son’s chariot. Unrelenting from his promise for justice, he ordered his own son to be killed for his recklessness. The prince was killed the same way the calf had died, being crushed under the wheels of his chariot. The king went through the same pain the cow had as he witnessed his son die and thereby, being just at all costs. The Judges of this Court, since its very inception, have always maintained this great tradition of the Chozha King and are rendering even justice to all concerned, whosoever he or she may be, irrespective of the fact whether they are rich or poor, and whether they occupy a high or a low status in the society. 2. The framers of our Constitution under Article 219 read with Schedule-III of the Constitution of India, made it compulsory for a Judge before entering Office, to take an oath that he will perform the duties without fear or favour, affection or ill-will, which a Judge, after entering Office, dutifully follows. No one has ever raised any finger on the dispensation of justice by this Chartered High Court. No one has ever raised any finger on the dispensation of justice by this Chartered High Court. However, a member of the Bar which is an integral part of dispensation of justice, has now raised a doubt as to how the Chief Justice of the High Court can share the dais with the Chief Minister of the State in a function to be organised tomorrow, i.e. 20th August, 2013, along with the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, as it will send a wrong signal to the general public, who will lose faith in this institution.3. The present petition, which has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation by an advocate, appearing in person, who had held responsible positions earlier as Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, Additional Government Pleader, Legal Advisor for the Chennai Port Trust, Standing Counsel for the Sugar Corporation of Tamil Nadu, Presenting Officer of the IAS Officers’ Enquiry and has also been a Notary Public, Government of India, has approached this Court by relying upon the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (Code of Conduct) adopted at the Chief Justices’ Conference held in December, 1999 and submits that sharing of the dais by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and the Acting Chief Justice of this High Court with the Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu in the ensuing function to be held on 20th August, 2013 would create a doubt in the minds of the litigants, as about eight cases are pending against her and therefore, it should be avoided.4. We had requested Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned Advocate General, who is present here, to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. He submitted that the present petition filed as a public interest litigation is not maintainable for the reason that the petitioner has deliberately suppressed the material fact that he is an active member of a political party and the writ petition in effect is nothing but a publicity oriented litigation, which should not be encouraged and dismissed summarily in limine with exemplary costs. He further submitted that the meeting of the Head of the Judiciary of a State with the Head of the Executive of the State is unavoidable. He further submitted that the meeting of the Head of the Judiciary of a State with the Head of the Executive of the State is unavoidable. For the development and proper implementation of the judicial system in the State, it is all but necessary to have such meetings, and sharing the dais with the Hon’ble Chief Minister in a function will not send any wrong message to the society. He relied upon a Division Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Pankaj Shrivastava & Another vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Another reported in 2011 (5) A.D.J. 863 . He further submitted that the Judges of this Court are always known to rise up to the occasion and do even justice, uninfluenced by any such instances.5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the Bar.6. In the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (Code of Conduct) supra, one of the resolutions is that justice must not merely be done, but it must also be seem to be done, and the behaviour and conduct of members of the higher judiciary must reaffirm the people’s faith in the growing expectation of the society from the judiciary and the challenges it is facing on account of tremendous increase in the volume of litigation. Lok Adalats, Mediation and Conciliation activities, legal literacy and the slogan of justice at door step have gradually reduced the distance of two other organs of the State from the judiciary created due to strict separation of powers, though the grips of checks and balances on each other have not yet loosened impartiality of the judiciary and accordingly, any act of a Judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court, whether in official or personal capacity, which erodes the credibility of this perception, has to be avoided. As submitted by the learned Advocate General, meetings between the Chief Justice of a High Court and the Chief Minister of a State are a must these days, so as to augment the infrastructure and staff strength for the High Court and also in connection with other development projects related to the judiciary in general.7. We find that the Allahabad High Court in the judgment rendered in Pankaj Shrivastava’s case (cited supra), in paragraph 41, has highlighted this position in the following words :- “41. We find that the Allahabad High Court in the judgment rendered in Pankaj Shrivastava’s case (cited supra), in paragraph 41, has highlighted this position in the following words :- “41. … Such meetings are not uncommon today due to rapid change in the nature of litigation and the justice delivery system, and also due to…” As against the aforesaid judgment of the Allahabad High Court, the petitioner therein preferred petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) in C.C. No.12569 of 2011, which had been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 8.8.2011. Thus, the view of the Allahabad High Court that such meetings between the Chief Justice and the Chief Minister are not uncommon in the present day scenario, due to the rapid change in the nature of litigation and the justice delivery system and also taking into consideration the functioning of lok adalats, mediation and conciliation activities, legal literacy and the slogan of justice at door step, such meetings have become a necessity, has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.8. We are in complete agreement with the view expressed by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Pankaj Shrivastava (supra). In our considered opinion, such meetings do not contravene the resolution adopted in the Restatement of Values in Judicial Life (Code of Conduct) referred to above. Moreover, we find that in this Chartered High Court, even on previous occasions, the then Chief Justices had been sharing the dais with the then Chief Ministers. If we recollect some of the past instances, we find that in the Centenary Celebrations held in the year 1962, the then Hon’ble Chief Justice of India along with the then Chief Justice of this Court had shared the dais with the then Chief Minister. Even in the Sesquicentennial Celebrations held last year, the senior most Puisne Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the then Chief Justice of this Court had also shared the dais along with the Chief Minister.9. All the cases mentioned by the petitioner relate to the period 1996-2007 and it is not his case that any undue favour has been shown by this Court. Moreover, the Judges of this Chartered High Court have always risen up to the occasion, to render even justice in the style of the legendary Chozha King, without fear or favour, true to the Oath taken by them while entering Office as a Judge. Moreover, the Judges of this Chartered High Court have always risen up to the occasion, to render even justice in the style of the legendary Chozha King, without fear or favour, true to the Oath taken by them while entering Office as a Judge. Thus, the apprehension of the petitioner is wholly unfounded and misconceived. Apart from this, we find that the petitioner is an active member of a political party, which fact has been deliberately suppressed by him.10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that this petition is more of a publicity interest litigation than a public interest litigation, and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.11. Before parting with the case, we would like to place on record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by the learned Advocate General in this matter.