Unprecedented in Judicial History
The Tuesday last became an unprecedented day in judicial history of the country when a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice of India J S Khehar announced the six-month imprisonment for contempt of court of a ‘grievous nature' against Calcutta High Court judge C S Karnan. It was inevitable to demonstrate that nobody is above law in the country. Justice Karnan crossed all limits of propriety and mocked at the highest court in the country in a manner that was atrocious and totally unbecoming of a senior functionary of the judiciary.
The court ruling that Karnan was medically fit, implying that he was not mentally unstable is, however, contestable. It is indeed debatable whether by defying the apex court's directive to appear before the Kolkata Medical Board and the board not contradicting his statement that ‘he was mentally stable' he can be deemed to be mentally stable. That he did not deserve leniency in the circumstances is a reasonable value judgement.
The plea taken by senior advocate K K Venugopal, appearing for Justice Karnan, that the court should consider the fact that Karnan was close to retirement from services in June is absolutely unacceptable and would have set a bad precedent.
Though Justice Karnan was slapped with contempt charges in February by the seven-judge bench and was also stripped of judicial and administrative powers for alleging corruption and caste bias in the judiciary, the Calcutta High Court judge had on Monday delivered a ‘verdict' holding all the seven judges of the bench guilty under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Cruelty) Act. The judges mentioned were the Chief Justice of India, Justice Dipak Misra, Justice J Chelameswar, Justice RanjanGogoi, Justice Madan B Lokur, Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Justice Kurian Joseph.
Justice Karnan may be arrested by the Kolkata police forthwith. No personage, however exalted his status, can be allowed to defy law the way he did persistently.
But the case also highlights a constitutional problem that the framers of the Constitution did not, for some reason, foresee: How do you discipline a judge short of impeachment? However, a question also needs to be asked: How did someone who seems to make headlines more often for non-judicial than judicial reasons, get appointed as a judge of a High Court? And are there others like him within?
On the other hand, the gag order of the Supreme Court to the media not to report the statements of Justice Karanan seems bad in law as well as spirit. Any order restraining the media amounts to quell the important freedom of expression. Also, at a simple level, just because it is impossible to stop Justice Karnan from making intemperate observations, the court should not be stopping those reporting the same. As ever, the media is only the messenger. Going after it is reflective of inability only.
