2017 Supreme(SC) 630

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJI., Dipak Misra, J. Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B. Lokur, Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Kurian Joseph, JJ.
IN THE MATTER OF:
In Re, Hon’ble Shri Justice C.S. Karnan
Suo-Motu Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 1 of 2017
Decided On : 09-05-2017

IMPORTANT POINTS
Scandalising the Court and interference with the due course of any judicial proceeding are criminal contempt.
Supreme Court has the authority to hear petition for contempt of its own. Personality of the contemnor is immaterial.
Process of selection and appointment of judges needs a relook.
Secondly, appropriate legal regime to deal with situations where the conduct of a Judge of a constitutional court requires corrective measures -other than impeachment- needs to be set up.

Headnote:Per Jagdish Singh Khehar CJI, Dipak Misra, Madan B. Lokur, Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Kurian Joseph, JJ.

       (a) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Sections 12 and 14 r/w Article 129, Constitution of India – Suo motu contempt proceedings against Shri Justice C.S. Karnan – Contemnor levelling obnoxious allegations against innumerable Judges of the Supreme Court, Chief Justices of the High Courts, trumpeting his position, as belonging to an under-privileged caste – None of his allegations, malicious and defamatory and pointedly by name against many of the concerned Judges, supported by any material – Carrying his insinuations to the public at large – Not only staying orders passed by Supreme Court but also restraining the Judges on this Bench from leaving the country – Furthermore convicting the Judges on this Bench, and another Judge of Supreme Court, and sentencing them to 5 years imprisonment, besides imposing individual costs on the convicted Judges – Shri Justice C.S. Karnan held guilty of contempt of Court – Punished with imprisonment for six months. (Para 34, 35, 36)

       Per J. Chelameswar for himself and Ranjan Gogoi JJ. (concurring)

       (b) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Sections 12 and 14 r/w Article 129, Constitution of India – Shri Justice C.S. Karnan elevated to Madras High Court under Collegium system – Levelling allegations of selection process of the judges of the constitutional courts being unwholesome; corruption against various judges and Chief Justices of the Madras High Court; commission of certain offences (rape) against one of the judges of the Madras High Court; and conduct of some of the judges of the Madras High Court constituting offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Current proceeding not an inquisition either into any allegation made by the contemnor or whether the activity of the contemnor is within the limits of the conduct permissible for a Judge of a High Court. (Para 3, 4)

       (1993) 4 SCC 441; (1998) 7 SCC 739 – Referred

       (c) Administration of justice – Contemnor alleging various misdeeds against many judges of High Court and Supreme Court – Claiming to have evidence – At best he is a complainant and a witness but not a judge in his own complaint – Passing orders in purported exercise of his judicial functions – If contemnor’s conduct amounts to “proved misbehavior” or “incapacity” he may be liable under Article124(4) read with Article 217(1)(b), Constitution of India warranting the impeachment – If on the other hand he cannot establish his allegations, he may be liable for civil and criminal action apart from any other legal consequences. (Para 8, 9)

       (d) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Sections 12 and 14 r/w Article 129, Constitution of India – Suo motu contempt proceeding against sitting High Court Judge – Had somebody filed a contempt petition, Supreme Court had the authority to hear – Contempt petition merely being suo motu will not denude the Court of its authority – Suo motu contempt held maintainable. (Para 13)

       (1765) Wilmot’s Notes, 243; (1970) 2 SCC 325; (1972) 1 SCC 651; 1993 Supp (1) SCC 529; (1974) 1 SCC 374 – Relied upon

       2008(1) GLT 800 – Cited with approval

       (e) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 2(c) – Criminal contempt – Scandalising the Court and interference with the due course of any judicial proceeding are a criminal contempt – Instantly contemnor labeling allegations of corruption etc. against Judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court – Contemnor challenging the very authority of Supreme Court to draw contempt proceeding against him – Conduct of contemnor during the pendency of the proceedings, held, constitutes criminal contempt. (Para 24, 25)

       (f) Administrative law – Matters of judiciary – Process of selection and appointment of judges needs a relook – Secondly, appropriate legal regime to deal with situations where the conduct of a Judge of a constitutional court requires corrective measures -other than impeachment – Needs to be set up. (Para 26, 27, 30)

       Facts of the case:

       This case concerns actions of a Judge of a High Court. The instant proceedings pertain to alleged actions of criminal contempt, committed by Shri Justice C.S. Karnan. The initiation of the present proceedings suo-motu, is unfortunate. In case Supreme Court has to take the next step, leading to his conviction and sentencing, the Court would have undoubtedly travelled into virgin territory. This has never happened. This should never happen.

       Contents of the correspondence addressed by Justice Karnan prompted a series of former Chief Justices of the Madras High Court, to write letters to the then Chief Justice(s) of the Supreme Court of India, seeking his transfer. The transfer of Shri Justice C.S. Karnan was also sought, through a joint representation addressed by 20 sitting Judges of the Madras High Court.

       Justice Karnan has been labeling allegations against the Chief Justice and other Judges of the Madras High Court for segregating him on account of his belonging to an under-privileged caste. He even cast aspersions on the Chief Justice of Madras High Court contending that he was guilty under SC/ST Act. Justice Karnan continued to write letters to higher executive and judiciary.

       Having viewed the unsavory allegations levelled by Justice Karnan over a span of time, it was prima-facie felt, that his conduct towards a large number of named Judges and the judiciary in general, had seriously blemished and tarnished the image of those concerned in particular, and the judiciary as a whole. It was accordingly decided to initiate suo-motu proceedings, for contempt of Court. A Bench comprising of the seven senior most Judges of the Supreme Court was constituted, to examine whether or not Shri Justice C.S. Karnan was guilty of having committed contempt. On the administrative side, the entire material referred to above, was entrusted to the Attorney General for India. He was also requested to assist the Court, in the matter, on the judicial side.

       Finding of the Court:

       Sri Justice C.S. Karnan, has committed contempt of the judiciary. His actions constitute contempt of Supreme Court, and of the judiciary of the gravest nature. Having found him guilty of committing contempt, we convict him accordingly.

       Result: Sri Justice C.S. Karnan Sri Justice C.S. Karnan convicted for contempt of Supreme Court and sentenced to six month’s imprisonment.