# [2017] 9 S.C.R. 212

- **Citation:** [2017] 9 S.C.R. 212
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2017
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/2017-9-s-c-r-212-32301
- **Pages:** 65

## Headnote

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 cont

## Text

_Characters 0–39,856 of 147,237. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39856 for what follows._

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 CourtRat}ier, he chose to challenge the very jurisdiction of this Court to
enquire into an allegation of contempt against a sitting Judge of
High Court. 7 Post notice conduct and the actions of the contemnor ·· G
· brought disrepute to the judicial system and has the potential of ·
shaking the. confidence of the average citizen in the system - Not
showing the slightest remorse could be a mitigating factor - Such
conduct. and qct, if tolerated, would certainly reflect an element of
· weakn.ess in the.sys(en~ - Contemnor to be punished for" the.contempt _ H _ 1
214
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2,017] 9 S.C.R.
A - Constitution of India -Arts. 124(4) and 217(l){b) - Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, i989.
(Per Ch'elameswar, J.)
Judiciary- Constitutional courts - Need to revisit the process
of selection and appointment of judges to the constitutional courts
B - Need to set up appropriate legal regime to deal with situations
where the conduct of a Judge of a constitutional court requires
corrective measures, other than impeachment to be taken. (Per
Chelameswar, J.)
Disposing of the petition, the Court
C
HELD: (Per Curium)
1.1 The actions of Justice 'K' constituted the grossest and
gravest actions of contempt of Court. He has also committed
contempt, in the face of the Court. He is therefore, liable to be
punished, for his unsavoury actions and behavior. He should be
D punished for his actions, with imprisonment for sb: months. [Para
36](262~D)
1.2 The text of the letters written by Justice 'K' from time
to time, have been examined as also Jhe suo-motu procedure
adopted by him, whereby he passed orders which were derogatory
E to the administration of justice, before he was issued notice for
contempt, by this Court. The orders passed by Justice 'K' suomotu (in the purported exercise of the jurisdiction vested in him
.
0
. under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with S.ection
482 of the Code of Criminal.Procedure), even lifter the issuance
F of th~ contempt notice to him, by this Court have been analysed.
His demeanour was found to have become further aggressive,
after this Court passed orders from time to time, in this case .•
The contents.; of the ·letters addressed by him contained
scandalous material against Judges. of High Courts and the
Supreme Court. This correspondence was addressed to the
G highest constitutional authorities,· in all three wings of
governs.nee-the legislature, the exe~utive and the judiciary. 'His
public utterances, turned the judicial system into a laughing stock.
The local media, unmindful of the dam11ge it was causing to the
judicial institution, merrily rode the 'K' wave. Even the foreign
H media, had its dig at the Indian judiciary. None of his actions can
IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C. S. KARNAN
215
be considered as bona fide, especially in view of the express A
directions issued by this Court requiring him to refrain from
discharging any judicial or administrative work. To restrain his
abuse of suo-motu jurisdiction, a further order had to be passed
by this Court restraining Courts, Tribunals, Commissions and
Authorities from taking cognizance of any order passed by Justice B
'K' (Para 33)(259-C-G]
1.3 Justice 'K' shielded himselffrom actions, by trumpeting
his position, as belonging to an under-privileged caste. By
assuming the said position, he levelled obnoxious allegations
against innumerable Judges of the Supreme Court, Chief Justices
of the High Courts, but mostly against Judges of the Madras C
High Court. None of the allegations levelled were supported by
any material. His allegations were malicious and defamatory, and
pointedly by name, against many of the concerned Judges. He
carried his insinuations to the. public at large, in the first instance,
by endorsing his letters carefully so as to widely Circulate the D
contents of his communications, to the desired circles. Some of
his letters were inte1;1tionally endorsed, amongst others, to the
President of the Tamil Nadu Advocate Association. And later,
through the internet, he placed his point of view, and the entire
material, in the public domain. During the course of hearing of· E
the instant contempt petition, his ridicule of the Supreme Court
remained unabated. In f~t, it was heightened, as riever before.
· In this process, he even stayed orders passed by this Court. By
the orders passed by him, he.restrained the Judges on this Bench,
from leaving the country, he convicted the Judges on this Bench,
and sentenced them to 5 years imprisonment, besides imposing
F
individual costs on the convicted Judges. While disposing of the
suo-motu contempt petition, this Court had directed, that no
fur;tlier statements issued by Justice ' K' would be publicized.
/file instant restraint order, however, does not prevent or hinder
, /ilny public debate on the matter, academic or otherwise. The G .
. . ,. media is not restricted in any manner, other than, to the limited
extent expressed. There is hope and expectation, that a
meaningful debate, would lead to a wholesome understanding of
the issue, from all possible perspectives. [Paras 34, 35)(259-H;
260-A; 261-F-H; 262-A-C]
H
. I .
I
216
SUPR,EME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 9 S.C.R.
A
Per Chelameswar, J.(For himself and Gogoi, .J.)
(Supplementing)
1.1 Faced with an unprecedented situation resulting from
the incessant questionable conduct of the contemnor perhaps
made the Chief Justice of India come to the conclusion that all
B the above-mentioned questions could better be examined by this
court on the judicial side. There is no reason to doubt the
authority/jurisdiction of this Court to initiate the contempt
proceedings. Hypothetically speaking, if somebody were to move
this Court alleging that the activity of Justice K tantamounts to
contempt of court and therefore appropriate action be taken
C against him, this Court is bound to examine the questions. It
may have accepted or rejected the motion. But the authority or
jurisdiction of this Court to examine such a petition, if made
cannot be in any doubt. Therefore, the fact that the present
contempt proceedings are initiated suo motu by this court makes
D no difference to its maintainability. If only the contemnor
appropriately participated in the proceedings, all the abovementioned questions and perhaps many more question incidental
to them could have been properly examined and necessary
conclusions could have been recorded. [Para 13J[265-F-G]
E
F
1.2 Unfortunately, the contemnor never allowed the inquiry
in the right direction. On the other hand, he chose to question
the jurisdiction of this Court to initiate contempt proceedings
against him not on the ground that his activity did not constitute
contempt, but on the ground that no contempt proceedings could
be initiated against a judge of a High Court. According to the
contemnor the only possible legal action against a judge of a High
Court is to remove him from office in accordance with the
procedure of impeachment prescribed under the Constitutionwhatever be his "conduct" and "misconduct", a stand which
clearly is untenable in law. He did not stop there. He believed
G that the initiation of contempt proceedings by this Court against
him would constitutl) an offence under the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as the
contemnor belongs to one of those communities falling within
the sweep of the protective umbrella of that enactment. He not
H
IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
217
only believed so, but also purported to pass certain orders A
ostensibly in exercise of the authority vested in him by virtue of
his appointment as a judge of a High Court to initiate various
actions against members of this Bench. In substance, (i) he
accused the members of this Bench guilty of prejudice against
him, (ii) "he declared" that the initiation of contempt proceedings
B
against him is malafide judicial action apart from constituting an
offence under the 1989 Act. [Para 14)(265-H; 266-A-D]
1.3 The authority to punish for contempt of court has always
been exercised by the judiciary from times immemorial. The
justification for the existence of that is not to afford protection to
individual judges but to inspire confidence in the sanctity and c
efficacy of the judiciary, though they do not and should not flow ·
from the power to punish for contempt. They should rest on more
surer foundations. The foundations are - the trust and confidence
of the people that the judiciary is fearless and impartial. [Para
16][266-F; 267-A-B]
D
. 1.4 The power to punish for contempt of court has always
been recognized to be inherent in certain superior courts and in
others it was conferred by statutes. The exercise of such a power
has always been very infrequent and subjected to some discipline.
Members of the Judiciary have always been conscious of the fact
that the power for contempt should be exercised with meticulous
care and caution and only in absolutely compelling circumstances
warranting its exercise. "The countervailing good, not merely of
free speech· but also of greater faith generated by exposure to
the actinic light of bona fide, even if marginally over-zealous,
criticism cannot be overlooked. Justice is no cloistered virtue."
[Paras 17, 20] [267-B; 269-C]
1.5 In India scandalising the Court is still recognizl!d to be
E
F
an act constituting contempt of court. Though what is the activity
which constitutes scandalisation of the Court is not defined or
very precisely explained in the above-mentioned. cases, G
indivi<luals were held guilty of contempt of court on the ground
that their deeds scandalized the Court. [Para 24)(273-F]
1.6 foterference with the due course of any judicial
proceeding is another facet of criminal contempt. The conduct of
H
218
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017) 9 S.C.R.
A the contemnor subsequent to the initiation of suo mot11 contempt
petition No.1 of 2017 in purporting to pass various orders, the
details of which are contained in paragraphs of the judgment of
Chief Justice of India leaves no scope for doubt about the question
whether such conduct would amount to interfering with the judicial
B proceedings pending in the highest court of the land. The main
proceeding might or might not have ended in finding the guilt of
the contemnor of scandalising the judiciary. The contemnor
aborted all attempts to judicially resolve the charge of commission
of contempt brought against him by the initial notice of the Court.
Rather, he chose to engage in a tirade challenging the very
C jurisdiction of this Court to enquire into an allegation of contempt
against a sitting Judge of a High Court. He had addressed
numerous written communications to the Members of the Bench
dealing with the case and had also passed several purported
judicial orders, which, even on a cursory glance, are contemptuous
D in nature and content. The "post notice" conduct and the actions
of the contemnor are to be judged by a minimum standard of
expectation, surely, the Judge before this Court has crossed even
the most liberal standards of expected and permissible expression
of opinion. There is no doubt that such conduct on the part of the
contemnor has brought disrepute to the judicial system and has
E
the potential of shaking the confidence of the average citizen in
the system. He has not shown the slightest remorse which could
be a mitigating factor. Such conduct and action, if tolerated, would
certainly reflect an element of weakness in the system; no such
weakness can be allowed to enter the system. The conduct of
the contemnor during the pendency of the proceedings in this
F Court certainly constitutes criminal contempt falling both under
the heads of scandalising the court as well as interference with
the proceedings of this court. The contemnor is therefore liable
to be punished for the contempt of this court. [Para 251[274-AG]
G
H
1. 7 This case has importance extending beyond the
immediate problem. This case highlights two things, (1) the need
to revisit the process of selection and appointment of judges to
the constitutional courts, for that matter any member of the
judiciary at all levels; and (2) the need to set up appropriate legal
IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
219
regime to deal with situations where the conduct of a Judge of a A
constitutional court requires corrective measures - other than
impeachment-to be taken. [Para 26)(274-H; 275-A]
1.8 The conduct of the contemnor ever since his elevation
to the bench has been controversial. Obviously, there is a failure
to make an assessment of the personality of the contemnor ·at B
the time of recommending his nanie for elevation. The purpose
is not to point fingers to individ_uals who were responsible for
recommendation but only to highlight the system's failure of not
providing an appropriate procedure for making such an
assessment. What appropriate mechanism would be suitable for
assessing the personality of the candidate who is being considered C
for appointment to be a member ofa constitutional court is a
matter which is to be identified after an appropriate debate by all
the concerned-the Bar, the Bench, the State and Civil Society.
But the need appears to be unquestionable. [Para 27)(275-B-C]
1.9 This Court is sad to point out that apart from the D
embarrassment that this entire episode has caused to the Indian
Judiciary, there are various other instances (mercifully which are
less known to the public) of conduct of some of the members of
·the judiciary which certainly would cause some embarrassment
to the system. [Para 28)(275-D)
E
1.10 The framers ofthe Constitution were people of a great
sense of patriotism and maturity, men and women who maintained
high standards of civic morality. They expected those who are to
be chosen for the higher constitutional offices or to be appointed
to public service would be chosen by assessing their suitability
F
(efficiency and integrity) by employing appropriate standards. The
makers of the Constitution were conscious of the fact that
ascendance to higher offices need not necessarily always
. guarantee rectitude and the incumbent of any constitutional office
could resort to behaviour inconsistent with the nature of the office
and ·standards of conduct expected. Thereafter, provisions were G
made in the Constitution for impeachment. of holders of various
constitutional offices starting from the President of India. [Para
29)(275-E-G]
H
220
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 9 S.C.R.
A
1.11 When it came to the members of the constitutional
courts equally, it was visualised that there can be such occasions.
But the standards and procedure for impeachment of judges are
much more rigorous for reasons obvious. There can be deviations
in the conduct of the holders of the offices of constitutional courts
B which do not strictly call for impeachment of the individual or
such impeachment is not feasible. Surely there must be other
ways of dealing with such cases. The text of the Constitution is
silent in this regard. [Para 30)(275-H; 276-A]
c
D
E
F
G
H
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v.
Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 441 : (1993) 2 Suppl.
SCR 659; Special Reference No.I of 1998 (1998) 7.
SCC 739: (1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 400; (E.M Sankaran
Namboodripad v. T. Narayanan Nambiar (1970) 2 SCC
325: [1971] l SCR 697; R.L. Kapur v. State of Madras
(1972) 1 SCC 651 : (1972] 3 SCR 417; Pritam Pal v.
High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur 1993 Suppl.
(1) SCC 529: (1992] 1 SCR 864; Shri Baradakanta
Mishra v. The Registrar of Orissa High Court & Another
(1974) 1 SCC 374 : (1974] 2 SCR 282 - referred to.
Rex v. A/111011 (1765) Wilmot's Notes, 243; Craig v.
Harney, 331 US 367, 376 (1947); He/more v. Smith,
(1887) 35 Ch D 449, 455; Law Commission's Report of
United Kingdom on "Contempt of Court: Scandalising the
Court (Contempt of Court : Scandalising The Court'',
(2012) The Law Com No.335 [London "(The
Stationery Office)] - referred to.
Case Law Reference
(1993] 2 Suppl. SCR 659
referred to
Para2
(1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 400
referred to
Para2
(1971] 1 SCR 697
referred to
Para 18
(1~72] 3 SCR 417
referred to
Para 19
(1992) 1 SCR 864
referred to
Para 19
[1974] 2 SCR 282
referred to
Para 20
IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
221
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Suo Motu Contempt A
Petition (Civil) No. I of2017.
Maninder Singh, ASG, Rakesh Dwivedi, K. K. Venugopal,
Rupinder Singh Suri, Ajit Kr. Sinha, Sr. Advs., ChanchalKr. Ganguli,
Ms. Narmada, Ms. Madhvi Divan, Nalin Kohli, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi,
Prabhash Bajaj, Nikhil Nayyar, N. Sai Vinod, Ms. Smriti Shah, Divyanshu B
Rai, Gaurav Bhatia, M. Yogesh Kanna, Ms. Nithya, Mrs. Maha Lakshmi,
Partha Sarathi, Ms. Uttara Babbar, Ms. Akanksha Choudhary, Advs.
for the appearing parties.
The Judgments of the Court were delivered by
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI
I. The task at our hands is unpleasant. ft 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. Kaman. The
initia~ion of the present proceedings suo-motu, is unfortunate. In case
c
this Court has to take the next step, leading to his conviction and
D
sentencing, the Court would. have undoubtedly travelled into virgin
territory. This has never happened. This should never happen. But
then, in the process of administration of justice, the individual's identity,
is clearly inconsequential. This Court is tasked to evaluate the merits of
controversies placed before it, based on the facts of the case. It is
E
expected to record its conclusioris, without fear or favour, affection or
ill-will.
2. The factual position which emerged in this case, during the
course of hearing, was almost entirely based on the contents of
correspondence addressed by Justice Kaman. They eventually resulted
in his transfer, from the Madras High Court to the High Court of Calcutta.
The episode of his transfer, was preceded by letters written by a series
F
of former Chief Justices of the Madras High Court,. 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.
G
3. During this period, and unconnected with the reasons for seeking ·
-his transfer, the Registrar General of the Madras High Court approached
this Court, highlighting the fact that Shri Justice C.S. Kaman had initiated
suo-motu writ proceedings, wherein, he had stayed administrative orders
H
222
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2017] 9 S.C.R.
A passed by the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court. Having heard
the matter, a Bench of this Court, presided over by the then Chief Justice
oflndia. passed the following directions: -
B
c
D
"Permission to file special leave petition is granted.
Issue notice.
In the meantime,. there shall be stay of interim order. dated
30.4.2015 passed in M.P. no. I of2015 in Suo-motu Writ Petition ·
no. (unnumbered) of2015, until further orders.
We restrain- the learned Judge, who has initiated proceedings
relating to Suo-motu Writ Petition no. (unnumbered) of 2015
pending before the High Court of Judicature at Madras from either
hearing or issuing any directions in said petition and other matters
connected therewith.
There shall not be any interference by any person/authority or
learned Judges in completing the process initiated by the High
Court for selection and appointment of Junior Divisional Judicial
Officers till the disposal of the special leave petition.
List after summer vacation."
The petition filed by the Registrar General was later assigned
Special Leave Petition (Civil) no. 14842of2015.
E
4. Undeterred by the intervention of this Court, Shri Justice C.S.
Kaman continued to foul mouth his colleagues at the High Court of
Maqras, by addressing communications to the highest executive and
judicial authorities. We shall refer to only those available on the record
of the case. We may, for reason of brevity, leave out the past, and
F commence with his letter dated 2l.8.2015, addressed to the Chief Justice
of the Madras High Court. A perusal of the aforesaid communication,
reveals his dissatisfaction in not having been assigned an appropriate
roster, when hewas deputed to the Madurai Bench of the Madras High
Court. Even when he returned to the Prificipal Bench, after a period of
three months, he was unhappy with the roster assigned to him. In the
G instant letter, he also expressed his displeasure, when matters originally
assigned to him, were taken away from his Board, by the Chief Justice
of the Madras High Court, and assigned to other Benches. Besides the
above personal grievances, he made direct and pointed allegations (in
his above letter dated 21.8.2015) against Shri Justice" ... V.D .... ", for
H
IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]
'
223
having been appointed as a Judge of the High Court, even though
A
. (according to Justice Kaman) he did not possess the requisite academic
qualifications for the position. Indeed, it was alleged, t~at his academic
certificates were bogus. It was also alleged (in the above letter dated
21.8.2015) that the Judges of the Division Bench- Dr. Justice" ... T.V .
... " and Shri Justice " ... C.T.S .... " had not exercised their judicial 8
functions independently, but had been passing orders, at the asking of
the then Chief Justice of the Madras High Court. He also accused the
ChiefJustice of the High Court, for having approached this Court, against
the suo-motu orders passed by him. The initiative at the hands of the
ChiefJustice of the Madras High Court (to approach the Supreme Court)
was described by him (in the above communication dated 21.8.2015) as
C
most insulting. Justice Kaman in the above letter, dated 21.8.20 I 5,
· accused the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, for not having
included him in any of the committees constituted for discharging
administrative responsibilities of the High Court. For this reason, he
accused the Chief Justice, for segregating him on account of his belonging
0
to an under-privileged caste. He also pointed out, that he had made a
complaint in this behalf to the Chairman of the National Commission for
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Justice Kaman also accused
the then ·chi~f Justice of the Madras High Court (in the above
communication) for having created a communal divide in the High Court.
His contention in this behalf was, that he favoured the advanced
E
communities, while making recommendations for appointment ofHigli ·
Court Judges, and at the same time ignored the under privileged castes
and tribes, as well as, the minorities. While concluding the letter dated
21.8.2015, Shri Justice C.S. Kaman expressed, thatthe Chief Justice of
the Madras High Court, had committed offences under the provisions of F
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Pre.vention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989.
5. Another letter ofShri Justic.e C.S. Kaman, dated 52.2016,
was addressed to the Home Secretary 9fTamil Nadu. The instant letter
was written to extend protection to a lawyer - Peter Ramesh Kumar,
who had made serious allegations against a few Judges, especially against
G
Shri Justice " ... V.R.S.M ..... ". The co-mmunication is interesting,
because the Home Secretary had been directel.to treat his letter as a
"suo-motujudicial order". In the above letter, JusticeKarnan had directed
the Registry of the Madras High Court, to assign the suo-motu writ
H
224
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 9 S.C.R.
A petition (-the letter dated 5.2.2016), a number. The direction contained
in the letter dated 5.2.2016, required the Home Secretary, to arrange
adequate police protection. for the safety of the afore-stated Advocate.
6. Shri Justice C.S. Kaman wrote another letter to the then Chief
Justice of the Madras High Court, on I 0.2.2016. In the instant
B communication he pointed out, that the High Court had arranged a function
forthe inauguration of Regional Centres of the Tamil Nadu State Judicial
Academy, at Coimbatore and Madurai (- on 21.2.2016). He accused
the Chief Justice, of allowing only upper caste Judges, to participate in
the function. It was pointed out, that no representation from scheduled
castes or scheduled tribes, was included in the celebration. It was alleged,
C that even though his name was initially included, it was replaced by a
junior upper caste Judge. He highlighted the fact, that he had been
repeatedly agitating on this issue, even on earlier occasions. In the instant
communication dated I 0.2.2016, Justice Kaman again declared the Chief
Justice of the Madras High Court, an offender under the Scheduled
D Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
7. In the above Special Leave Petition (Civil) no. 14842 of2015
filed by the Registrar General, High Court of Madras (see paragraph 3
above). I.A. no. 6 of2016 was filed on 12.2.2016, by the Registrar
General of the Madras High Court, for urgent directions. Jn the said
E application, reference was first made to the order dated 30.4.20 I 5 passed
by Justice Kaman, which was stayed by this Court on 11.5.20 I 5 (order
extracted in paragraph 3 above). Thereafter, Justice Kaman addressed
a letter dated 2 l.8.20 I 5 to the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court
(details narrated above). Shri Justice C.S. Kaman then addressed a
F
letter dated 10.2.2016, again allegedly in exercise of suo-motu judicial
power (details expressed above). It was also sought to be highlighted in
I.A. no. 6of2016, that on I 0.2.2016, Justice Kaman, had raised objections
in connection with a function org::nized by the Madras High Court,
alongwith the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy to inaugurate Regional
Centres at Coimbatore and Madurai, scheduled for 21.2.2016. Justice
G Kaman had alleged therein, that he had been removed as a member of
the Board of Governors of the Judicial Academy. It was sought to be
explained (in I.A. no. 6 of 2016), that the allegations levelled by Shri
Justice C.S. Kaman were misconceived, because he had never been
nominated as a member of the Board of Governors of the Judicial
Academy, since its inception in 200 I. The contents of I.A. no. 6 of
H
IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
225
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]
2016, also make a reference to another alleged suo-motu judicial order,
A
dated 5.8.2016, passed by Shri Justice C.S. Kaman, directing the Home
Secretary to the State ofTamil Nadu to provide police protection to one
Shri Peter Ramesh Kumar on the ground, that he was facing threats to
his life, from a few Judges of the Madras High Court, wherein he
expressly named Shri Justice" ... V.R ..... "(details narrated above).
B
The background for passing the above order was sought to be explained
in paragraph 10 of I.A. no. 6of2016, as under:-
"The above order has been passed in the following background,
enumerated below:
(a) On 16.9;2015, few advocates along with W. Peter Ramesh c
Kumar' barged into Court Hall no. 2 of the Madurai Bench.
and stopped willing advocates from addressing the Hon'ble
Bench to enforce a boycott call. Moreover, the concerned
Advocate threatened the Hon'ble Bench to take anv action
against him. As a result, the Division Bench was forced to
initiate contempt proceedings for his misdemeanors.
D
(b) The above named Advocate was previously hauled up for
contempt on several occasions: Three years ago, the High
Court directed the State Bar Council to initiate disciplinary
proceedings for misconduct. Earlier. a Full Bench of the High
Court had found him guilty of contempt and put him on probation
E
for a period of one (l) year. Nonetheless, the concerned
Advocate continued to indulge in dismptive practices even during
the probation and the matter is pending consideration before
the Full Bench.
(c)On 30.11.2015. the Suo-motu Cont. Petition (MD) no. 1449
F
· of ·2015, registered pursuant to the Order dated 16.9.2015
passed by the Madurai Bench, came up for hearing for the
fifst time before Mr. Justice" ... R.S .... "and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice " ... M. V.V .... " The above named Advocate. appearing
in person, prayed for time to file a response. However. the
G
alleged Contemnor made offensive. and casteist allegations
against the Presiding Judge of the Division Bench that initiated
the proceedings in his Counter Affidavit. The alleged
Contemnor also made false and scandalous imputations against
certain women lawyers in connection with the learned Judge.
••
H
226
A
B
c
D
E
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 9 S.C.R.
He further circulated the contents of the affidavit including the
offensive remarks through WhatsApp and Facebook.
(d) On 28.1.2016, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court
transferred the Suo-motu Cont. Petition (MD) no. 1449of2015
before a specially constituted Bench at the Principal Seat of
the High Court. In the meanwhile, the alleged Contemnor
continued to circulate scurrilous and objectionable messages
against the Hon'ble Judges hearing the aforesaid contempt
petition, through social media.
(e) On 4.2.2016. the Division Bench framed charges against
him in the Criminal Contempt proceedings and served copies
of the charges on him. Upon receipt of the copy of the charges,
he shouted slogans hailing the deceased leader of a banned
organization and also made casteist remarks against the Judges.
However, the Bench posted the case to 15.2.2016 for the
contemnor's reply to the charges.
(f) On 5.2.2016, the Division Bench of the High Court passed
an Order to restrain the concerned Advocate from indulging
and circulating offensive and objectionable remarks against
the women members of Bar on a Writ Petition moved by a
group of six concerned women lawyers being aggrieved by
these allegations. Moreover, all four associations of lawyers
at Madurai passed resolutions to condemn the scurrilous
campaign conducted by the alleged Contemnor and urged the
High Court and the State Bar Council to take stringent action
against him."
F
Last of all it was pointed out, that in terms of the roster issued by
the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, with effect from 1.2.2016,
Justice Kaman was assigned to hi::ar criminal revision - admission and
final hearing, and specially ordered matters. It was pointed out, that
Justice Kaman was passing orders in complete disregard to the roster
G assigned to him. It was also asserted, that Justice Kaman had been
repeatedly interfering or reopening issues, even in currently pending
matters before other Benches of the High Court. It was highlighted,
that he had even stayed judicial proceedings pending before the High
Court. Jn I.A. no. 6of2016, the Registrar General of the Madras High
Court, sought appropriate directions through the following prayers:-
H
IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
227
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]
"PRAYER
A
In the premises, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to:
(a) stay the operation of Suo-motu Judicial Orders dated
5/8.2.20 J 6 (Annexure A-6) and 10.2.2016 (Annexure A-4) passed
by Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.S. Kaman of the High Court ofMadras;
B
(b) direct Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.S. Kaman not to exercise any
suo-motu powers of the High Court or to direct the Registrar, Madras
High Court, to register such suo-motu ordt;rs as being pursuant to suomotu writ petitions;
(c) restrain the Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.S. Kaman from hearing or
issuing directions or in any manner dealing or connected with the
proceedings relating to Suo-motu Judicial Order dated 5/8.2.2016 and
10.2.2016 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras;
c
(d) pass such other.and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may
0
deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the matter."
During the course of hearing in the above I.A. no. 6 of 2016
(wherein one ofus-Jagdish Singh Khehar, and Mrs. R. Banumathi, JJ.,
were members of the Bench), the Court was informed, that Shri Justice
C.S. Kaman had already received the proposal for his transfer from the
E
High Court of Madras. Having taken into consideration, the totality of
the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court passed the following
order on 15.2.2016:-
"Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel having entered
appearance on behalf of the petitioner has filed the affidavit of F
Mr. " ... B.H. ... ", Registrar-cum-Private Secretary to Hon'ble
the Chief Justice, High Court of Madras, dated 14.02.2016. A
.perusal of the same reveals that Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.S. Kaman
has received the proposal of his transfer from the High Court of
Madras dated 12.02.2016.
G
Having taken note of the situation. in our view it would be
appropriate. that Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.S. Kaman should hear
and dispose of only such matters as are speciallv assigned to him
by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court. It will be
open to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court, not to assign
H
228
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017) 9 S.C.R.
A
any further administrative/judicial work to him. This would imply,
that no other orders shall be passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.S.
Kaman, suo-motu or otherwise, in any matter not specially assigned
to him.
The operation ofall or any administrative/judicial order(s} passed
B
by Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.S. Kaman, after the issuance of the
proposal of his transfer from the Madras High Court dated
12.02.2016.(unless specially assigned to him, by Hon 'ble the Chief
Justice), shall remain stayed till further orders.
A copy of the instant order shall be furnished to Hon'ble Mr.
c
Justice C.S. Kaman, by the Registrar General of the High Court.
It shall be open to the Hon'ble Judge to enter appearance before
this Court, in case he is so advised (in respect of the instant/
pending matter)."
8. The next relevant letter, was issued by Justice Kaman, on
D 26.10.2016. It was addressed to the City Police Commissioner, requiring
him to register criminal cases. In the instant letter, Justice Kaman claimed
to be a victim of social and caste discrimination. He also alleged, that he
had been subjected to agony, on account of ragging and demeaning actions,
of Judges of the Madras High Court, spearheaded by Shri Justice" ...
F.M.I.K. .... ". These allegations ofragging were classified by him, into
E four categories, as under:-
F
G
H
''The social boycott by the ragging Judges could be classified into
four categories as under:
I. The below mentioned Judges directly resorted to insulting me
in public premises, namely Mr. Justice " ... l.K .... ", Mr. Justice
" ... N.N .... ",Mr. Justice" ... R.S .... ",who is now posted to
Jammu & Kashmir, Mr. Justice" ... K.N.B .... ",Mr. Justice" ...
R.S.M ..... " now posted as Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court, Mr. Justice" ... A.A .... ", Mrs. Justice" ... A.J .... ", Mr.
Justice" ... N.K .... ",Mr. Justice" ... S.M.K .... "and Mr. Justice
" ... M.S. ·.··" The below mentioned three Judges'' ... M.YE .
... ",now retired Judge of the Supreme Court oflndia, Mr. Justice
" ... R.K.A .... ",now a serving Judge of the Supreme Court and
Mr. Justice" ... s~K.K .... ",who also extended their cooperation
with the ragging Judges of the Madras High Court by operating
IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
229
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJ!]
administrative power and insulted me at the public institution/ A
Judiciary, to that effect I have levelled complaints against them
under the Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribes Atrocities Act which
are pending enquiry at the respective high dignitary offices.