Defiant Justice Karnan: One of the postulates of the Rule of Law is “however high you may be the law is above you”. This was painfully brought home to Justice C S Karnan who has the dubious distinction of being the first judge of a high court against whom a contempt notice has been issued by the Supreme Court.
A seven-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India J S Khehar, took strong notice of Karnan’s non-appearance despite being served with a contempt notice and asked the West Bengal Director General of Police to execute the warrant and ensure the judge’s presence on March 31 at 10.30 am.
Justice Karnan held a purported court session at his residence on March 10, within hours of the Supreme Court issuing a bailable warrant for his arrest, and astonishingly ordered that a case be registered under relevant sections of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against CJI Khehar and other Supreme Court judges—Justices Dipak Mishra, J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur, Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Kurian Joseph—and also Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi.
Addressing a press conference at his residence, Justice Karnan thundered that the apex court had no locus standi to issue a bailable warrant against a sitting judge, and that the warrant issued against him was unconstitutional.
And there was the disgraceful lament that he is being targeted because he is a Dalit. To make matters worse, Justice Karnan has appealed to the President to revoke the warrant against him and exhibited his bravado by stating that “if the law keepers of the country have taken an unprecedented route to malign me, I have the power to take an unprecedented route to fight back”.
His stand is that only a motion of impeachment can be initiated against a sitting judge of the higher judiciary before the Parliament after due enquiry under the Judges’ Enquiry Act and that “the Supreme Court shares equal power and rights with all the high courts of the country. It is not my master and I am not its servant. I will not appear before the SC”.
The incident is extremely distressing. In view of Karnan’s defiant and irrational stand, the Supreme Court had no option but to adopt the course it did. Any leniency to Karnan would have been entirely misplaced and sent a wrong message. According to press reports, Karnan sought a meeting with the CJI and his brother judges who issued the arrest warrant. It was rightly refused.
We anxiously await developments in the Supreme Court on March 31. At present two thoughts come to my mind: Who were responsible for appointing Karnan as a judge of the high court? Next, if Karnan is found guilty of contempt, would it not be in the fitness of things to send this unbalanced individual to a mental institute rather than a civil jail?
Supreme Court’s
Commendable Directive: Recognising that speedy trial in criminal cases is a part of the fundamental rights of an accused, a bench of Justices A K Goel and U U Lalit has suggested a time frame for lower courts to decide a case in order to ensure that the accused do not languish in jail due to prolonged proceedings.
The bench has requested the high courts to issue directions to subordinate courts to decide bail applications within a week, and in cases where the accused is in custody, magisterial trial should be concluded within six months and sessions trial within two years. The bench significantly observed that the constitutional right of speedy trial cannot be denied on the plea of non-availability of financial resources.
Judiciary Upholds Media Freedom: A bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Dipak Misra, A M Khanwilkar and Mohan M Shantanagoudar dismissed a PIL demanding an investigation into alleged kickbacks received by Indian journalists to write in favour of the multi-crore AgustaWestland VVIP chopper scam.
The bench observed that it would shoot down all petitions which are disguised as public interest litigation with the intent of curtailing the independence of the media. It further observed, “We must presume integrity and objectivity of media which has been given an independent status in our democratic polity”. The Supreme Court’s approach and articulation are most welcome.
solisorabjee@gmail.com