LexIN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C. S. KARNAN versus .
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
,.;. . '
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 212
..
t
;
IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C. S. KARNAN
(Suo-motu.Contempt Petition (Ci~it) No. I of 2017)
MAY09, 20171ANDJULY04,20172
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI, DIPAK MISRA,
J. CHELAMESWAR, RANJAN GOGOi,
MADAN B. LOKUR, PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND
. KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.)
. Co11tempt 9f(ourts Act, 1971 - ss. 2(b), 2(c) - Contempt of
cow:.t - Suo mot11, COf!tempt proceedings against High Courtjudge
-,Alleged actions.pf criminal, contemp/ by a sitting judge-Justice K
C - He leveled obnoxious allegations against innumerable judges of·
Supreme Court, Chief Justice of High Courts, but mostly against
judges of Madras High Cour~ - Wrote letters, addressed to the media,
addressed corresponde11ce io the highest constitutional authorities:
and ordered registration. of a case under the provisions of the 1989
D Act'"- Suo motu judicial orders passed by Justice K, even after
issuance of contempt notice - Held: Actions of Justice 'K' constituted
the grossest and gravest actions ofr:ontempt of Court - He also
committed contempt, in the face OJ the Court- None of the allegations
levelled by Justice 'K' were supported by any :11ateria/ - His
allegations were malicious and defamatory, and pointedly by name,
E against many of the concerned Judges - He carried his insinuc:'!ons
to the public at large by letters, and through internet - Some of hi."
letters were intentionally endorsed, amongst others, to the President
of the Tamil Nadu Advocate Association - During the course of
hearing of the i11stant contempt petition, his ridicule of the Supreme
F Court remained unabated - He even stayed orders passed by this
Court and also, restrained the Judges on this Bench, from leaving
the country and convicted them, and sentenced them to 5 years
imprisonment - Thus, liable to be punished, for his unsavoury
actions and behavior with imprisonment for six months - Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Preventio11 of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
G (Per Khehar, CJ/)
H
1 Judgment by the Bench of Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJ!, Dipak Misra, J Chelameswar,
Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B. Lokur, Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Kurian Joseph, JJ.
2 Judgment by the Bench ofJ. Chelameswar·and Ranjan Gogoi, JJ.
212
IN RE; HON'BLE SHRI Jusric.E c. s: KARNAN · ·
••• •
<
•
'
'
•
.-
•• -
'
••
•
-
,
'
<.".:6 .... :·•
'
c~~temp{(]fcourt .;. Suo 111otli ~oniempt proceedings against .·A
High Court judge·.~ Unsavory allegatio.ns levelled by thejudge ·
towards a large 11un1ber oJ nanied Judges and the judiciary -'-field:
Reis seriot1sly tarnished the _image of those concerned, and the
'judiciary as a whole - Tf111s, initiation suo-hwtuproceedings, for
>contempt of court. (Per Klteliar, CJ/)
·
·
.
-
.
.,
·-,~·
s.2(c) - Criminal contempt - Impeachment of contemnor .~
·Sitting judge 'K · of the High Court addressing letters containing
allegations of corruption and commission of various offences by
B.
the judge and successive Chief Justices of the 'Madras High Court
- Letters addressed to constitutional functionaries ;_' Judg~ 'K'
passed order commanding various authorities to take legal action c
against the said judges - Allegations made public, undermining the·
credibilily of the judiciary - SuiJ motu contempt proceedings against ·
the judge - Judge :s cas'e that no contempt proceedings. could be .
. initiated against the judge of the High Court; that on(v legal action
against the judge was to remove him from office by impeachment · D · · ·
'and that initiation of contempt proceeding against him would
constitute an offence under fhe 1989 Act - Held: The Court has
jurisdiction to initiate contempt proceedings - Prese1it contempt
proceedings initiated suo motu by this Court makes no difference to
its maintainability - Power to punish for contempt oj court has
always been recognized to be inherent in certain superior courts -
E
Scandalising the court and inte1ference with the due course of any
judicial proceeding is recognized t<? be an act constituting contempt
of court - Conduct of contemnor during the pendency of the
proceedings in this Court certainly constitutes criminal contempt -
Main proceedings might or might not have ended i'fijinding the · F
guilt of the co11tem11or of scandalising the judiciary - Contemnor
aborted all attempts to judicially resolve the charge <?l commission
of cont~mpt brought against him by the initial notice of the Court-
Rat}ier, he chose to challenge thExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.