Even before the dust, which arose a fortnight ago on AIADMK MLA R Thamaraikani issue, settled the second confrontation between the Legislature and the Judiciary has emerged.

Taking serious objections to the reported remarks of the CM attributing motives to the grant of stay and to the words `non-application of mind by the court', the Judge observed that this amounts to contempt of court.

He went to the extent of calling for a certified copy of the Assembly proceedings relating to the issue and to expunge the entire portion of the remarks.

"Is this not interference in the judiciary? When such motives are attributed, which judge will proceed with thecase? How can the judiciary function, if the Chief Minister says that the judge had not applied his mind? We could better shift the court there (Assembly)! Why do we need Article 226 of the Constitution? (writ jurisdiction of High Courts), the judge asked.

He went on to say that, "such statements may be good at political meetings. But not for a person in a responsible position like the CM. He suspects the integrity of the institution. This is too much. What will the people in other States and the Apex Court think about the Madras High Court, as the remarks were flashed in the newspapers?."

He further added, "It is not the Assembly which alone works for the social welfare of the people. Besides social welfare, the courts have to deliver social justice, too. Under the guise of privilege motion, can a member speak anything. How did the Speaker allowed it?"

"I feel that the officials have not facilitated the CM to apply his mind by providing all relevant information," Justice Dinakaranremarked.

Additional Advocate General T R Rajagopalan told the judge that the CM did not mean whatever he said that way. He said that the CM has the highest regard for the judiciary and that his remarks were unintentional.

Following a suggestion from the judge that the portion be removed from the records, the AAG said that he will advise the Government to expunge the entire portion relating to the issue. "That is the proper way to uphold the dignity of the institution and it is not my individual view. It is the collective view of the court," the judge said.