“  Reportable”

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

SUO-MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1 OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

In Re, Hon’ble Shri Justice C.S. Karnan

J U D G M E N T

Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJI

1. The task at  our hands is  unpleasant.   It  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

this  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.  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

expected to record its conclusions, 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 Karnan.  They eventually resulted in his transfer,

1

from the Madras High Court to the High Court of Calcutta.  The episode

of his transfer, was preceded by letters written by a series 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.   

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.  Karnan  had

initiated  suo-motu  writ  proceedings,  wherein,  he  had  stayed

administrative  orders  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 of India, passed the following directions: -

“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. 1 of 2015 in Suo-motu Writ Petition no. (unnumbered) of 2015, 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. 14842 of 2015.

2

4. Undeterred  by  the  intervention  of  this  Court,  Shri  Justice  C.S.

Karnan  continued  to  foul  mouth  his  colleagues  at  the  High  Court  of

Madras,  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

commence with his letter dated 21.8.2015, 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 he was deputed to the Madurai Bench of the Madras High

Court.  Even when he returned to the Principal Bench, after a period of

three months, he was unhappy with the roster assigned to him.  In the

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 having

been appointed as a Judge of the High Court, even though (according to

Justice Karnan) he did not possess the requisite academic qualifications

for the position.   Indeed,  it  was alleged, that  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  functions

independently, but had been passing orders, at the asking of the then

3

Chief  Justice  of  the  Madras  High  Court.   He  also  accused  the  Chief

Justice of the High Court, for having approached this Court, against the

suo-motu orders passed by him.  The initiative at the hands of the Chief

Justice of the Madras High Court (to approach the Supreme Court) was

described by him (in the above communication dated 21.8.2015) as most

insulting.  Justice Karnan in the above letter, dated 21.8.2015, 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  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 Karnan also accused

the  then  Chief  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

communities,  while  making recommendations for  appointment of  High

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. Karnan expressed, that the Chief Justice of

the Madras High Court, had committed offences under the provisions of

the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989.

4

5. Another letter of  Shri Justice C.S. Karnan, dated 5.2.2016, was

addressed to the Home Secretary of Tamil 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 Shri

Justice “… V.R.S.M. ….”.  The communication is interesting, because the

Home  Secretary  had  been  directed  to  treat  his  letter  as  a  “suo-motu

judicial  order”.   In  the  above  letter,  Justice  Karnan had  directed  the

Registry of the Madras High Court, to assign the suo-motu writ 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. Karnan wrote another letter to the then Chief

Justice  of  the  Madras  High  Court,  on  10.2.2016.   In  the  instant

communication  he  pointed  out,  that  the  High  Court  had  arranged  a

function for the 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,  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 10.2.2016, Justice

5

Karnan again declared the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, an

offender under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989.

7. In the above Special Leave Petition (Civil) no. 14842 of 2015 filed

by the Registrar General, High Court of Madras (see paragraph 3 above).

I.A. no. 6 of 2016 was filed on 12.2.2016, by the Registrar General of the

Madras  High  Court,  for  urgent  directions.   In  the  said  application,

reference was first made to the order dated 30.4.2015 passed by Justice

Karnan, which was stayed by this Court on 11.5.2015 (order extracted in

paragraph 3 above).  Thereafter, Justice Karnan addressed a letter dated

21.8.2015 to the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court (details narrated

above).   Shri  Justice  C.S.  Karnan  then  addressed  a  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. 6 of

2016,  that  on  10.2.2016,  Justice  Karnan,  had  raised  objections  in

connection  with  a  function  organized  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

Karnan 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.  Karnan  were  misconceived,  because  he  had  never  been

nominated  as  a  member  of  the  Board  of  Governors  of  the  Judicial

6

Academy, since its inception in 2001.  The contents of I.A. no. 6 of 2016,

also make a reference to another alleged suo-motu judicial order, dated

5.8.2016,  passed  by  Shri  Justice  C.S.  Karnan,  directing  the  Home

Secretary to the State of Tamil 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).  The

background for passing the above order was sought to be explained in

paragraph 10 of I.A. no. 6 of 2016, 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  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 any action against him.  As a result,  the Division Bench was forced to initiate contempt proceedings for his misdemeanors.

(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  for  a  period  of  one  (1)  year. Nonetheless, the concerned Advocate continued to indulge in disruptive 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  of  2015,  registered  pursuant  to  the  Order  dated 16.9.2015  passed  by  the  Madurai  Bench,  came  up  for hearing for the first 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

7

response.  However, the 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.  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. 1449 of 2015 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.”

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 Karnan was assigned to hear criminal revision – admission and

final hearing, and specially ordered matters.  It  was pointed out,  that

Justice Karnan was passing orders in complete disregard to the roster

8

assigned to him.  It was also asserted, that Justice Karnan 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.

In I.A. no. 6 of 2016, the Registrar General of the Madras High Court,

sought appropriate directions through the following prayers:-

“PRAYER 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 5/8.2.2016  (Annexure  A-6)  and  10.2.2016  (Annexure  A-4) passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.S. Karnan of the High Court of Madras;

(b) direct Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.S. Karnan not to exercise any suo-motu powers of the High Court or to direct the Registrar, Madras High Court, to register such suo-motu orders as being pursuant to suo-motu writ petitions;

(c) restrain the Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.S. Karnan 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;

(d) pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may 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

of  us  –  Jagdish  Singh  Khehar,  and  Mrs.  R.  Banumathi,  JJ.,  were

members of the Bench), the Court was informed, that Shri Justice C.S.

Karnan had already received the proposal for his transfer from the High

Court of  Madras.  Having taken into consideration, the totality of the

9

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 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. Karnan has received the proposal  of  his transfer from the High Court of Madras dated 12.02.2016.  

Having taken note of the situation, in our view it would be appropriate, that Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.S. Karnan should hear and dispose of only such matters as are specially 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 any further administrative/judicial work to him. This would imply, that no other orders shall be passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.S. Karnan, suo-motu or otherwise, in any matter not specially assigned to him.  

The operation of all or any administrative/judicial order(s) passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.S. Karnan, 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. Justice C.S. Karnan, 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  Karnan,  on

26.10.2016.  It was addressed to the City Police Commissioner, requiring

him to  register  criminal  cases.   In  the  instant  letter,  Justice  Karnan

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

10

Shri Justice “… F.M.I.K. ....”.  These allegations of ragging were classified

by him, into four categories, as under:-

“The social boycott by the ragging Judges could be classified into four categories as under:

1. The below mentioned Judges directly resorted to insulting me in public premises, namely Mr. Justice “… I.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.Y.E. ...”, now retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India, 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 administrative power and insulted me at the public institution/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.  Now I request you to include all the above mentioned three Judges along with the first category of Judges and register a F.I.R. accordingly and precisely.  To prove my allegation against the said Judges, material evidences are available on the file of the Registry of the Madras High Court.

2. The second category Judges through indirectly extending their cooperation for social boycott and ragging with their physical presence at the venues.

3. The third category were enjoying by way of laughing and bodily gestures, and

4. The fourth category of Judges maintained their silence and showed their  consternation of  their  actions metered out against me.”  

Based on the  above  insinuations,  Justice  Karnan made the  following

request to the City Commissioner of Police, Chennai:-

“Now I  request  you to  register  a  criminal  case  against  the  first category of ragging Justices under the Ragging Act including social boycott.   The  other  erring  Judges  will  be  included  after

11

investigation.  My view of wanting to establish a prosecution case against accused persons/Judges for which I take a major role in the instant case.  Your role is only marginal as a competent officer to pursue such major offences to its logical conclusion before the concerned  criminal  Court.   As  per  my  complaint,  I  will  file  an affidavit  in  my name in order  to  establish the case against  the accused  persons  at  an  appropriate  time.   This  kind  of  major offences is indeed a public crime against a Dalit Judge and this matter  will  also  be  placed  before  the  Parliament  against  erring Judges after observing necessary formalities.”

9. Reference also needs to be made to a letter dated 18.1.2017, which

was addressed by Justice Karnan, to the State Public Prosecutor, Madras

High Court, Chennai, wherein he highlighted the fact, that he had passed

a suo-motu judicial order, against Shri Justice “… N.D. ...” (now retired),

asserting that Shri Justice “… N.D. ...” had produced bogus educational

qualification certificates, for procuring his appointment as Judge of the

Madras High Court.  In the above letter, it was also pointed out, that an

enquiry into the matter was pending before the Supreme Court of India.

It  was  alleged,  that  the Chief  Justice  of  the  Madras  High Court,  was

shielding the said Shri Justice “… N.D. ...”.  It was also highlighted, that

Shri Justice “… S.K.K. ...” – the then Chief Justice of the Madras High

Court, was facing charges of corruption, and also, for having committed

offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989.  He also brought out that the then Chief Justice of

the  Madras  High  Court,  had  engaged  Shri  Elephant  Rajendran,  for

appearing  before  the  Supreme  Court,  despite  the  fact  that  the  said

Advocate  was  involved in a  murder  case.   It  was  also  alleged,  that  a

12

criminal  case  had  also  been  registered  against  the  said  Advocate,  for

having committed forgery.  In his letter, Justice Karnan had requested

the Public Prosecutor to collect the particulars of the above cases, and to

investigate them with the assistance of top police officials of the State.  He

had also requested the State Public Prosecutor, to forward the results of

the investigation to him, so that he could produce the same before the

Supreme Court.

10. Vide another letter dated 23.1.2017,  Justice Karnan highlighted

corruption in the High Court,  inter  alia  at  the hands of  the following

Judges:-

“1. Mr. Justice “… S.K.K. …”; 2. Mr. Justice “… S.M.K. …”; 3. Mr. Justice “… V.R.S.M. …”; 4. Mrs. Justice “… C.V. ...”; 5. Mr. Justice “… R.S.R. ...”; 6. Mr. Justice “… R.K.A. ...”; 7. Mr. Justice “… T.S.T. ...”; 8. Mr. Justice “… M.Y.I. ...”; 9. Mr. Justice “… I.K. ...”; 10. Mr. Justice “… A.K. ...”; 11. Mr. Justice “… E.D.R. ...”; 12. Mr. Justice “… K.N.B. ...”; 13. Mr. Justice “… A.A. ...”; 14. Mrs. Justice “… A.J. ...”; 15. Mr. Justice “… V.D. ...”; 16. Mr. Justice “… M.M.S. ...”; 17. Mr. Justice “… N.K. ...”; 18. Mr. Justice “… N.N. ...”; 19. Mr. Justice “… T.R. ...”; 20. Mr. Justice “… S. ...”.

The instant letter dated 23.1.2017 was endorsed by Justice Karnan to

Shri “… H. ...”, Private Secretary-cum-Registrar attached with the Chief

13

Justice of the Madras High Court, to Shri “… P.K. ...”, Registrar of the

Madras High Court, and also, to Shri “… S.P. …”, Advocate - President,

Tamil Nadu Advocates Association.

11. The  mindset  of  Shri  Justice  C.S.  Karnan  emerges  from  a

communication dated 3.1.2017, addressed by him to the Prime Minister

of India.  It would be appropriate to extract the same hereunder, rather

than recording a summary of  its  contents,  as has been done hitherto

before.   The  text  of  the  aforesaid  communication  dated  3.1.2017  is

accordingly reproduced below:-

“I request you to please peruse the following:-

1. Mr. Justice “… T.S.T. ...”, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India comes in for retirement on 3.1.2017.  The learned Judge had sent various lists of Judges as proposals for appointment to the High Courts.  This list has not included adequate DALIT representation, neither  from  the  minority  communities  like  Muslims  and Christians.   The  proposed  list  made  up  of  financially  sound candidates  particularly  from the upper caste  and from the elite hereditary  candidates.   This  kind  of  selective  choice  is  not appropriate  in  a  democratic  country  and  unbecoming  of  the judiciary since it evidently points to discrimination.

2. Mr. Justice “… T.S.T. ...”, CJI, at a crucial meeting wherein all the Chief Ministers of various States and Union Territores, and Hon’ble Chief Justices of various High Courts met.  After observing the weeping drama of this CJI, the Indian population of 125 crores are unable to determine the attitude of the CJI since he is the top most authority of the entire judiciary, to maintain law and justice form Kanyakumari to Kashmir and all about.

3. The above-mentioned Hon’ble Judge was found weeping, yet  in  another  moment  showing  outbursts  of  anger  against  the Union Government in order  to  approve the Judges list  while  at another venue at Gujarat appreciated the Union Government.  This kind of  unbalance  vicious  behavior  is  similar  to  the  chameleon lizard which changes its colour at random through various hues.

14

This erratic behavior by a top dignitary is baffling the minds of vast sections of our Indian populace numbering crores.

4. Mr. Justice “… T.S.T. ...”, CJI and Justice “… S.K.K. ...”, Chief Justice of Madras High Court conniving prevented me from participating  at  the  inauguration  of  the  Legal  Aid  Centre  in Coimbatore.   As  such  they  discriminated  me  from joining  in  a public function even though being a Judge of a High Court.  Both were  Chief  Guests  presiding  over  the  function.   Therefore,  I initiated  preliminary  legal  action  against  them  by  invoking  the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Atrocity Act.  This bonafide allegation  will  be  proved  on  the  basis  of  documentary  evidence already available on file of the Madras High Court Registry besides circumstantial evidence.

5. Mr. Justice “… T.S.T. ...”, who orally ordered the holding of my  pronounced  judgments  to  Mr.  Justice  “…  S.K.K.  ...”,  Chief Justice  of  the  Madras  High  Court  without  assigning  any  valid reasons such as enquiry or any legal provisional requirement.  As such both have jointly resorted to conniving by insulting me in a public institution.  As such both including the Registrar (Judicial), Madras High Court are offenders under the SC/ST Act. Mr. Justice “…  T.S.T.  ...”  ordered  an  enquiry  against  me  on  concocted complaints which I am now facing.  In that enquiry both the said Judges  have  been  included  as  co-respondents  including  the Registrar (Judicial).   After the enquiry report being forwarded to Parliament for further discussion in order to determine the actual person for  impeachment.   Under these circumstances,  I  request the  Hon’ble  Prime  Minister  of  India  to  nullify  the  perusal  and consideration of  any tentative plans for a suitable position after retirement by the present CJI.  As such the matter may be kept on hold until suitable amends made to all the injustices shown to me.

6. Likewise  Mr.  Justice “… S.K.K.  ...”,  Chief  Justice of  the Madras High Court may also be treated similarly as mentioned in (5) for conniving with the CJI and also keep him waiting for any tentative  promotion  until  my  accusations  are  cleared  including corruption charges.

7. My  critical  position  restrains  me  and  I  am  unable  to disclose the facts and circumstances of the judiciary in its entirety to  the  whole  Nation  in  general  only  because  I  belong  to  the fraternity of Judges and its my bounden duty to uphold the dignity and sanctity  of  our courts  at  all  times.   However,  the rampant irregularities  continuously  being  perpetrated  by  many  Judges which  are  incurring  incurable  injury  to  the  judiciary  must  be

15

curbed.  I cannot say in public what is going on in Madras High Court which has sunk to the bottom most level of degradation and sadly given leverage of support by the Apex Court.

8. As per the Indian Constitutional Law the judiciary is the highest  branch  in  our  Constitutional  set  up,  as  such  other branches  such  as  the  Legislature,  the  Executive  including  the general  public  cannot  be  involved  with  judiciary  orders  and administrative  methods.   As  such  the  judiciary  is  purely  an independent body, so taking advantage of this many Judges are tarnishing the image of the judiciary for their own personal gains.

9. Mr. Justice “… M.K. ...”, had committed custodial rape in the  public  premises  particularly  in  the  precincts  of  his  Court chamber with his Law Intern namely Ms. “... D. …”, who is a victim and  now  restrained  to  move  with  society  as  an  Indian  high cultured lady, it also spoils her carrier in the legal field and most of all casting a stigma on the child begotten by the said Judge.  It is a proved case but  Justice  “… S.K.K.  ...”,  Chief  Justice  of  Madras High  Court  is  responsible  for  shielding  the  errant  Judge. Therefore, Mr. Justice “… S.K.K. ...’s” administration has fallen to pieces and irreparable deterioration of ethical standards.

10. Mr.  Justice  “…  V.D.  ...”  (retired)  had  produced  bogus educational qualification certificates in obtaining the distinguished post of  Judge at  the Madras High Court,  the crime was proved while he was a sitting Judge at the Madras High Court, however, the Chief Justice Mr. “… S.K.K. ...” misused his administrative and judicial powers by protecting the erring Judge until his retirement. This also being a proved case indicating vested interest.

11. Initially  I  lodged  a  written  complaint  before  the  Madras City Commissioner of Police around one month back against 13 Judges  consisting  of  Supreme  Court  Judges  and  Madras  High Court Judges, out of this group Mr. Justice “… E.K. ...” is ‘captain’ or “spear head” of the accused Judges’ ‘team’.  The allegation is that  all  the  mentioned Judges in my complaint  had ragged me continuously and persistently  for eight years at  public  premises but  the  said  enquiry  is  still  pending with  the  Commissioner  of Police for necessary action.

12. Mr. Justice”… K.S. ...” (retired) the father of Mr. Justice “… S.M.K. ...” has established an office in front of the Madras High Court and is always found wandering at the Madras High Court premises soliciting required clients with offers of favourable fruitful orders as consequence of him being an Ex-Judge and exerting good

16

influence  for  his  personal  gain;  this  also  being  a  proved  case known to the entire judiciary, advocates besides the general public.

Hence, I  request you, Hon’ble Prime Minister of India to initiate necessary  steps  in  order  to  save  the  Top  Most  image  of  the judiciary.  To that effect my sincerest request also goes out to all political  parties  of  India  to  extend  their  fullest  cooperation  in maintaining the impeccable image at all times, a mission that you are striving for in order to cure all the ills that has befallen our great  nation  an  importantly  that  the  judiciary  maintains  an unblemished reputation for perpetuity.”

12. It would be relevant to mention, that at the beginning of the year

2017, the issue of transfer of Shri Justice C.S. Karnan from the Madras

High Court to the High Court of Calcutta, had evoked animated public

debate.  At this juncture, his attitude became far more aggressive, than

hitherto before.  His insinuations were now more pointed, his prominent

singular  focus  being  his  colleague  Judges,  of  the  Madras  High  Court

(present and former), and the Judges of the Supreme Court, who had a

nexus with the Madras High Court, possibly under the belief, that they

were  responsible  for  his  tribulations.   Included  in  the  list,  were  also

Judges  of  the  Supreme Court  (including  Chief  Justices),  who  had  an

occasion to deal with matters, involving Justice Karnan.  It is essential to

detail some of these communications, in order to understand the content

and nature of the allegations.

13. In  the  above  context,  reference  may  first  be  made  to  three

communications dated 27.1.2017.  The first of these communications was

addressed to Shri Justice “… M.M.S. ...”,  a Judge of  the Madras High

Court.   The  contents  of  the  letter  indicate,  that  the  concerned Judge

17

invited Shri Justice C.S. Karnan, to the weekly Wednesday-night dinner,

hosted by Judges at the Madurai Bench.  It was alleged, that even though

the appointed time was 8.00 p.m., since he had not reached the dinner

venue, he was called on his telephone by Shri Justice “… M.M.S. ...”, and

was requested, that the Judges at the dinner venue were waiting for him

(Justice Karnan), and they would commence their dinner, only upon his

arrival.   It  was  alleged,  that  he  (Justice  Karnan)  reached  the  venue

immediately  thereafter.   It  was  alleged  in  the  above  letter,  that  on

reaching the venue, he observed that most of the Judges had already had

their dinner, while the rest had already commenced their dinner.  It was

the  assertion  of  Justice  Karnan,  that  he  had  been  invited  only  for

irritating him, ragging him, and ridiculing him.  Since the above actions

were  committed  with  a  malafide  intention  at  a  public  place,  Justice

Karnan wrote in his above letter, that he reserved the right to invoke his

judicial power, and thereby, to take action against the concerned Judges

suo-motu,  for  their  prosecution.   A  copy  of  the  instant  letter  was

endorsed to the Prime Minister of India, the Union Law Minister and the

Chief Justice of India.   

14. The  second  letter  also  dated  27.1.2017,  was  addressed  to  Shri

Justice “… A.A. ...” (retired).  In the instant letter, he accused Justice “…

A.A. ...” and Mrs. Justice “… A.J. ...” for their role along with the other

Judges, in socially boycotting him (Justice Karnan), and for ragging him.

It  was  pointed  out,  that  he  had  lodged  a  complaint  against  the  said

18

Judges,  before  the  National  Commission  for  Scheduled  Castes  and

Scheduled Tribes.  He also affirmed, that copies of the said complaint,

had been sent to various dignitaries, including the Chief Justice of India.

The pointed insinuation against Shri Justice “… A.A. ...” and Mrs. Justice

“… A.J. ...” was, that they had developed illicit relations, inasmuch as,

they were behaving as husband and wife.  It was also alleged, that the

elder  daughter  of  Mrs.  Justice  “… A.J.  ...”  had  committed  suicide  by

consuming poison, only to avoid the disgrace suffered by her, on account

of the relationship between Shri Justice “… A.A. ...” and her mother Mrs.

Justice “… A.J. ...”  In the above second letter dated 27.1.2017, Justice

Karnan alleged, that the above mentioned Judges were chargeable under

Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, alongwith other Judges, namely,

Shri Justice “… S.N. ...”, Shri Justice “… N.K. ...” and Shri Justice “…

S.M.K. ...”, who had misused their judicial power, to prevent the initiation

of  criminal  prosecution  against  them.   In  the  instant  letter,  Justice

Karnan also accused the above two Judges, for having conspired with six

other  named  sitting  Judges  of  the  Madras  High  Court,  for  having

instructed the Registry  of  the High Court,  not to extend assistance to

Justice Karnan, in conducting religious ceremonies, after the demise of

his father.

15. The third letter also dated 27.1.2017, was addressed by Justice

Karnan,  to  the  Registrar  General  of  the  Madras  High  Court.   It  was

alleged therein, that he (Justice Karnan) had already lodged a complaint

19

against Shri Justice “… S.N. …”, who had maintained two concubines,

namely, Mrs. “… J.(M) …” and Mrs. “… R.S. …”  It was also alleged, that

the factual position pertaining to this illegal alliance, had been brought to

the notice of the Acting Chief Justice.  Through the third communication

dated 27.1.2017, Justice Karnan had also enquired about the stage of

investigation, of the case.   

16. In February, 2017, Justice Karnan assumed charge at the Calcutta

High Court.  From Calcutta, Justice Karnan addressed an undated letter

to the Prime Minister of India, with copies to the Chief Minister of Tamil

Nadu, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India, the Chief Justice

of the Madras High Court and the Registrar General of the Madras High

Court.   Besides  ridiculing  the  system of  appointment  of  Judges  since

1990, which (according to him) favoured the upper castes, he adopted the

following stance on the subject of appointments:-

“His Excellency, the President of India and Hon’ble Prime Minister of India have given their valid view that transparency and clarity are of paramount importance with the judiciary.  Even then the Collegium is maintaining secrecy on the mode of appointment of Judges,  since  the  appointment  of  Judges  are  evolving  in  the documents during the processing, where in unwanted things are actually  happening like  soliciting  of  pretty  women,  heavy liquor consumption, acquisition of mass wealth, forgery and other forms of gross misdemeanor,  within a Court of law.  I  am not casting aspersions  but  rendering  direct  accusations  for  which  I  am prepared to stand at any time for a confrontation.”

17. 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

20

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.   On

8.2.2017, the Bench passed the first judicial order:-

“1. Issue  notice  to  Shri  Justice  C.S.  Karnan,  returnable  on 13.02.2017.  2. The  Registry  is  directed  to  ensure,  that  a  copy  of  this order,  and  the  letters  taken  note  of  while  issuing  notice,  are furnished to Shri Justice C.S. Karnan, during the course of the day, through the Registrar General of the Calcutta High Court.  3. Shri  Justice  C.S.  Karnan,  shall  forthwith  refrain  from handling any judicial  or administrative work, as may have been assigned to him, in furtherance of the office held by him. He is also directed  to  return,  all  judicial  and  administrative  files  in  his possession,  to  the  Registrar  General  of  the  High  Court immediately.  4. Shri Justice C.S. Karnan shall remain present in Court in person, on the next date of hearing, to show cause. 5. The learned Attorney General has assisted us during the 2 course of hearing, today. We request him to assist us, during the course of further proceedings in the matter.”

18. Shri Justice C.S. Karnan in response to the order dated 8.2.2017

(extracted above) addressed a letter to the Registrar General of this Court

on  10.2.2017.   He  expressed  the  following  view,  on  the  initiation  of

suo-motu contempt proceedings against him:-

“In the above mentioned suo-motu petition it is not maintainable against a sitting Judge of the High Court, further the Suo-motu

21

Contempt  order  passed  against  me,  since  I  have  sent representations  to  the  various  Govt.  Authorities  regarding  high irregularities and illegalities occurring at the Judicial Courts.  I am also  a  responsible  Judge  to  control  such  high  irregularities especially  corruption  and  malpractice.   I  have  furnished comprehensive  proof  of  unethical  practices  happening  with  the respective Courts.

Before obtaining any explanation from me, I wish to state that the Courts  have  no  power  to  enforce  punishment  against  a  sitting Judge of the High Court.  This said order does not conform to logic, therefore it is not suitable for execution.  The characteristic of this order clearly shows that the upper caste Judges are taking the law in their hands and misusing their judicial power by operating the same against a SC/ST Judge (Dalit) with mala fide intention to get rid  of  him.   Therefore  the  Suo-motu  Contempt  Order  dated 8.2.2017 is not sustainable under law.  On 15.2.2016 I proclaimed a statement in front of the Madras High Court premises which was attended  by the  Press  Media  and  Electronic  Media  wherein  the crucial statement by me was that Mr. Justice “… S.K.K. ...” is the root  of  all  corruption  at  the  above-mentioned  Court.   To substantiate  my  proclamation,  I  even  offered  to  counteract  any contempt order he may level against me.  However, it is apparent that he was wary of facing the facts.  Now, after keeping silence on this crucial issue for over a year, or as the adage which says: “The dust as settled down”, he brought up the issue aspiring himself as a candidate for the elevation to the Apex Court.  I now challenge him even at this 11th hour to prove himself being an unblemished Judge so that he may qualify for the elevation as a Supreme Court Judge.

Furthermore, I  even gave a recent allegation that there were 20 Corrupt Judges at the Madras High Court and that the Hon’ble Justice  “… K.K.  ...”  is  no.  1,  even this  accusation  was  ignored although my complaint is still on file.  It is observed that the 7 Judges mentioned above are all out for a Contempt Case against me, presumably to clear the path for Justice Mr. “… S.K.K. ...’s” elevation; Please don’t let it be the case of “Locking the stable after the horse has bolted”.  The Suo-motu Contempt Order against me a  Dalit  Judge  and  restraining  my  judicial  and  administrative assignment is unethical and goes against the SC/ST Atrocities Act. It is certainly a National Issue and a wise decision would be to refer the  issue  to  the  House  of  Parliament.   On  15.2.2016,  I  also included in my proclamation that Hon’ble Justice Mr. “… J.S.K. ...” and Mrs. Justice “… R.B. ...” passed a similar harsh order against me,  therefore  I  am  constraint  to  give  a  direction  to  the

22

Commissioner  of  Police,  Chennai,  to  register  a  criminal  case against the both mentioned Hon’ble Judges.  Therefore, the present Chief Justice of India is obviously bearing the same prejudice as in the past by passing the same order.

Therefore my deep request is to hear the Suo-motu Contempt after retirement  of  Chief  Justice  of  India.   In  the  meanwhile  my administrative work and judicial assignment could be restored.  My main contention is only to uproot the corruption prevailing at the Madras High Court, and not to spoil the sanctity and decorum of the Court.

The  Hon’ble  Judge  have  passed  this  sort  of  an  unusual  order which effect the Star Articles of 14 and 21 of the Constitution by derogating the principle of natural justice.  I issued a list of the corrupt  Judges  wherein  an  enquiry  is  mandatory,  as  such  the Suo-motu Contempt Petition is not maintainable.  The order of the Apex Court in the Suo-motu Contempt Petition is erroneous and has  been  willfully  wantonly  and  with  mala  fide  intention  was passed.   Therefore,  these  proceedings  may  be  referred  to  the Parliament,  wherein  I  will  establish  the  high  rate  of  corruption prevailing with the Judiciary at the Madras High Court.  The said Order also violating Article 219 of the Constitution since there is distinct ill-will in the order.  Hence, I request the Hon’ble Judges to hear the matter after the retirement of the present Chief Justice of India but if considered urgent then refer the matter to Parliament. This is my humble and urgent submission.  Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court had not granted the stipulated time which is highly irregular.”  

A perusal  of  the above letter  of  Shri  Justice  C.S.  Karnan very clearly

demonstrates, that he had made allegations against a large number of

Judges,  which  he  continued  to  maintain,  were  correct.   He  also

acknowledged,  that  he had addressed the media,  after this Court  had

issued notice to him (on 8.2.2017), wherein he affirmed the allegations he

had made against 20 named Judges of the Madras High Court.  He also

declared before the Press, that the then Chief Justice of the High Court,

was at the top of the list,  amongst corrupt Judges.  He also affirmed,

23

having  issued  a  direction  to  the  Commissioner  of  Police,  Chennai,  to

register a case against two Judges of the Supreme Court (Shri Justice “…

J.S.K. …” and Mrs. Justice … “R.B. …”), with reference to a judicial order

passed by them.

19. Shri  Justice  C.S.  Karnan,  was  duly  served  the  notice  in  the

Suo-Motu Contempt Petition, for 13.2.2017.  He had been asked through

the earlier order dated 8.2.2017 to enter appearance in person.  He chose

to remain absent and unrepresented.  It was, therefore, that the second

judicial order was passed on 13.2.2017.  The above order confirmed the

interim directions issued by the first order (dated 8.2.2017).  The Bench,

rather than taking any stringent steps against Justice Karnan, for not

having  entered  appearance  as  directed  (despite  due  service),  granted

liberty to Justice Karnan to appear in person on 10.3.2017 – the next

date of  hearing.  The text of  the order dated 13.2.2017 is reproduced

below:-

“Sri Justice C.S. Karnan has been duly served, in terms of the motion Bench order dated 08.02.2017. A communication dated 10.02.2017 addressed by Sri Justice C.S. Karnan to the Secretary General  of  this  Court  has  been received  in  the  Registry  of  this Court.  Every  page  of  the  above  communication  bears  his signatures. The aforesaid letter of Sri Justice C.S. Karnan is taken on record.  

2. Despite  due  notice,  Shri  Justice  C.S.  Karnan  has  not appeared. No one has been authorised by Sri Justice C.S. Karnan to represent him today.  In any case,  no one having a power of attorney,  has  represented  him today.  We  are  not  aware  of  the reason(s) for his non-appearance. It  is therefore,  that we refrain from proceeding with the matter as of now.  

24

3. Post for hearing on 10.03.2017 at 10.30 a.m. Sri Justice C.S. Karnan is directed to be present in Court in person, on the next date of hearing. We also hereby direct, that the interim order passed in this matter  on 08.02.2017,  shall  continue till  further orders.  

4. It is necessary to notice, that certain counsel, appeared on their  own.  We  enquired  from  them,  whether  they  were  duly authorised by Sri Justice C.S. Karnan, and were in possession of a power  of  attorney  to  represent  him.  They  had  no  such authorization.  These  learned  counsel  submitted,  that  they proposed  to  file  impleadment  application  on  behalf  of  certain organization. The oral prayer for impleadment is rejected.  

5. Since contempt proceedings are a matter strictly between the  Court  and  the  alleged  contemnor,  anyone  who  enters appearance and disrupts the proceedings of  this case in future, should  understand  that  he/she  can  be  proceeded  against,  in consonance with law. All that we need to say is, that no one should appear in this matter, without due consent and authorization.  

6. The Registry shall  communicate the instant order to Sri Justice C.S. Karnan, in the same manner as he was communicated the previous order.”

20. On  13.2.2017,  Justice  Karnan  addressed  another  letter  to  the

Secretary General of this Court.  And through the Secretary General, to

the members of the Bench dealing with the contempt proceedings.  In the

instant  letter  he  requested  the  Bench,  to  restore  his  judicial  and

administrative work, as he was to retire shortly.  He also undertook to

cooperate  with this Court,  in furtherance of  the contempt proceedings

initiated against him.  The short text of the above communication dated

13.2.2017, is reproduced below:-

“My Hon’ble Lords,  please resume my Administrative  & Judicial work forthwith since my retirement is imminent.  I will certainly co-operate with the Contempt proceedings; please circulate to all the concerned Hon’ble Judges and oblige.”

25

Justice  Karnan  also  addressed  a  separate  letter  dated  13.2.2017,

purporting to be his explanation, to the show cause notice issued to him.

Relevant extract of the same is reproduced below:-

“…The following purports to be my condensed explanation: -

(1) I am fighting for righteousness and for the welfare of the general public of India.

(2) I reiterate as always done, during the last few years about the high rate of Corruption at the Courts I served and still serving, besides the Supreme Court of India.  I will not cease my efforts and will continue to fight until every wrong doing is uprooted.

(3) It  should  be  noted  that  there  has  been  no  adequate representation  from  the  minority  communities  such  as  the Muslims, Christians, Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe and of the most backward Communities, to the High Courts and Supreme Court even though the total strength of Judges is around 1100, an insignificant  few  including  myself  are  holding  the  position  of Justice of the peace.

(4) Therefore, I request the Hon’ble Supreme Court Collegium to appoint as Judges around 400 candidates from the Schedule Caste,  Schedule  Tribe  and  of  the  Minorities  including  most Backward Classes so that Justice will prevail on a neutral stance and  that  no  quarter  is  biased  and  no  one  is  benefitted.   The balance  of  power  if  unfortunately  centred  with  the  upper  caste Judges resulting in the worst corrupt scenario ever witnessed since India attained Independence in 1947.  I, as a serving Judge of the Judiciary  cannot  tolerate  the  degeneration  of  the  Judiciary  by corrupt  Judges  and in  this  regard  I  have  placed  on record  the corruption of various Judges over the years.

(5) Mr. Justice “… N.K. ...”, Judge of the Madras High Court kicked me with his shoe and slyly removed my name tag pinned on my seat at a public function and I immediately reported this matter to  the  Supreme  Court  with  intimation  to  the  Chairman  of  the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes Commission.  This incident smacks of the prejudice coming from a dignified Judge and is the worst form of corruption as per the Atrocities Act of  the Indian Constitution.  This complaint is pending with the Court for around

26

4 years.  Hence, I am seeking a comprehensive enquiry to all my allegations.

(6) Mr. Justice “… S.M.K. ….” has committed a custodial rape with his intern, namely Ms. “… D. …” and as a consequence of his dastardly crime she conceived and delivered a male baby.  Both Ms. “… D. …” and the boy child are living.  If this atrocious crime coming  from a  High  Court  Judge,  as  alleged  by  me  cannot  be determined  then  why  cannot  the  case  be  examined  by  more professional  investigators?   This  incident  coming  from  the precincts of the Madras High Court is now known to the general public.  Is the general public to believe that Judges are above the law?

As anyone can easily discern, these are genuine reasons why I am looking forward to a comprehensive review of all my allegations and not  be  considered  –  “A  spoil  sport”.   All  my  efforts  are  most paramount  and  imperative  since  it  is  solemnly  meant  for  the upholding of the sanctity and decorum of the Courts.”

A perusal of the above reply of Justice Karnan reveals, his unequivocal

and  steadfast  assertion,  about  the  high  rate  of  corruption  in  Courts,

including Judges of the Supreme Court of India.  His pointed and direct

allegations against some individual Judges, were again reiterated.  

21. Despite  the  fact  that  the  Registry  of  this  Court,  had  duly

communicated the order dated 13.2.2017 to Shri Justice C.S. Karnan, he

chose  not  to  enter  appearance  even  on  10.3.2017.   To  procure  the

presence of  Shri  Justice C.S.  Karnan,  this Court  passed the following

order on 10.3.2017:-

“1. Notice  of  this  petition  has  been  duly  served.  Despite service, wherein the personal presence of Shri Justice C.S.Karnan, in this Court, was imperative, he has neither entered appearance in person, nor through counsel.  

2. It would be pertinent to mention, that the Registry of this Court received a fax message, from Shri Justice C.S.Karnan, dated 08.03.2017,  seeking  a  meeting  with  the  Chief  Justice  and  the

27

Hon'ble  Judges  of  this  Court,  so  as  to  discuss  certain administrative issues expressed therein, which primarily seem to reflect  the  allegations  levelled  by  him  against  certain  named Judges.  The  above  fax  message,  dated  08.03.2017,  cannot  be considered as a response of Shri Justice C.S.Karnan, either to the contempt petition, or to the notice served upon him.  

3. In view of the above, there is no other alternative but to seek the presence of Shri Justice C.S.Karnan by issuing bailable warrants.  Ordered accordingly.  Bailable warrants,  in the sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand),  in the nature of  a personal bond,  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  arresting  officer,  be  issued,  to ensure the presence of Shri Justice C.S.Karnan, in this Court, on 31.03.2017, at 10.30 A.M.  

4. We would appreciate if the aforesaid bailable warrants, are served  on  Shri  Justice  C.S.Karnan,  by  the  Director  General  of Police, West Bengal.  

5. Post for hearing on 31.03.2017, at 10.30 A.M.”

22. On  the  very  day  the  third  judicial  order  dated  10.3.2017  was

passed,  Shri  Justice  C.S.  Karnan purportedly  in  exercise  of  suo-motu

extra ordinary original jurisdiction (under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), passed

an order dated 10.3.2017.  Relevant part of the above order, is extracted

below:-

“As known to law, no contempt either civil or criminal can be initiated against a sitting High Court Judge under Sections 2(c), 12 and 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act or under Article 20 of the Constitution of India.  But subverting all  cannons of justice the accused  persons  due  to  pre-conceived  prejudicial  notion  have initiated  the  above  mentioned  unlawful,  illegal  and unconstitutional  suo-motu  contempt  proceedings  only  with  the view to somehow punish a sitting Judge of this Court belonging to a Scheduled Caste community.

2. It  is  also  a  well-known  factor  only  a  motion  of impeachment can be initiated against a sitting Judge of the higher

28

judiciary before the Parliament after due enquiry under the Judges’ Enquiry Act.

3. It  is  well  within  judicial  knowledge  a  first  attempt  was made by the Apex Court in the colourful transfer from the High Court of Judicature at Madras to the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta.

4. It is also a open secret that a die-hard affidavit was filed before  the  Apex  Court  by  Advocates  Shanti  Bhushan  and Prashanth  Bhushan  in  a  similar  contempt  case  touching  upon several corruption charges on sitting and former Supreme Court Judges now pending in the cold storage of the Supreme Court for years, without any action either way.

5. It  is  also  within  judicial  knowledge  that  all communications, draftings to the appropriate executive, legislative and judicial authorities is only permitted legal ventage which in no way  invite  suo-motu  contempt  proceedings  much  less  on  High Court Judges.

6. Another clinching matrix is that none of the following 13 persons have preferred any complaint or defence against, whereas the  accused  persons  have  taken  upon  themselves  as  protocol guardians on the allegations of the following persons:-

“1. Mr. Justice “… S.K.K. …”; 2. Mr. Justice “… S.M.K. …”; 3. Mr. Justice “… V.R.S.M. …”; 4. Mrs. Justice “… C.V. ...”; 5. Mr. Justice “… R.S.R. ...”; 6. Mr. Justice “… R.K.A. ...”; 7. Mr. Justice “… T.S.T. ...”; 8. Mr. Justice “… M.Y.I. ...”; 9. Mr. Justice “… I.K. ...”; 10. Mr. Justice “… A.K. ...”; 11. Mr. Justice “… E.D.R. ...”; 12. Mr. Justice “… K.N.B. ...”; 13. Mr. Justice “… A.A. ...”; 14. Mrs. Justice “… A.J. ...”; 15. Mr. Justice “… V.D. ...”; 16. Mr. Justice “… M.M.S. ...”; 17. Mr. Justice “… N.K. ...”; 18. Mr. Justice “… N.N. ...”; 19. Mr. Justice “… T.R. ...”; 20. Mr. Justice “… S. ...”.

29

21. Mr. “… H. ...”, Private Secretary-cum-Registrar; 22. Mr. “… P.K. ...”, Registrar; &  23. Mr. “… S.P. ...”, Advocate & President,  

Tamil Nadu Advocates Association. xxx xxx xxx

In the result, I direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to register, investigate and file a report before the appropriate Court of law under Article 226 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process of any Court and to secure the ends of justice invoking  my  inherent  powers  of  this  Hon’ble  Court,  under  the appropriate  criminal  provisions  of  the  Scheduled  Castes  and Scheduled  Tribes  (Prevention  of  Atrocities)  Act,  1989  and  other Penal provisions against the accused persons and I further direct the Secretary Generals of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha to place the  entire  facts  of  the  case  before  the  Speaker  for  appropriate enquiry under the Judges’ Enquiry Act and consequently I request His Excellency the President of India to recall the bailable warrant illegally issued by the Supreme Court on 10.3.2017 and lift  the non-work allotment ban of  port-folio  allocation and file  a report within 7 (seven) days before this Hon’ble Court.

Dated and signed by me this day 10th of March, 2017.”

The  above  suo-motu  order  was  endorsed  to  this  Court.   It  was  also

endorsed to the Rajya Sabha Secretariat (Legislative Section), whereupon,

the Rajya Sabha Secretariat (Legislative Section) addressed the following

letter to this Court:-

“RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT (LEGISLATIVE SECTION)

Subject:   Suo-motu  extra  ordinary  special  original  jurisdiction under  article  226  of  the  Constitution  read  with  section  482  of Criminal  Procedure  Code,  1973  –  Communication  from  Shri Justice C.S. Karnan, Judge, Calcutta High Court regarding.

A  copy  of  the  communication  on  the  above  mentioned subject, containing, an order dated the 10th March, 2017 passed by Shri  Justice  C.S.  Karnan,  Judge,  High  Court  of  Calcutta  in Suo-motu W.P. (Criminal) no. 1 of 2017 is sent herewith.  It has been mentioned in the order that seven Judges of  the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice of India (names mentioned in the order), along with the Attorney General of India in suo-motu contempt petition (C) no. 1 of 2017 dated 8.2.2017 have called for

30

his  appearance  on  10.3.2017  citing  various  reasons  and  has inter-alia directed that the Secretary-General of Rajya Sabha may place the  entire  facts  of  the  case before  the  Hon’ble  Chairman, Rajya Sabha for appropriate enquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act,  1968.   Shri  Justice  C.S.  Karnan has posted the  matter  to 31.3.2017 for compliance and reporting.

2. In this connection, it is stated that the provisions of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 become operative only when there is a substantive motion meeting requirements under Section 3(1) of the Judges  (Inquiry)  Act,  1968  presented  in  either  House  of  the Parliament.   Hon’ble  Chairman,  Rajya  Sabha  cannot  take  any suo-motu  action  in  this  regard  at  this  stage  since  there  is  no motion before him to consider taking the action desired by Justice Karnan.   Further,  as  per  practice  and  convention,  Hon’ble Chairman, Rajya Sabha or Secretary-General, Rajya Sabha do not respond  to  the  notices/orders  received  from the  courts  and  all such communications are forwarded to the Ministry of  Law and Justice  for  apprising  the  concerned  court  about  the  correct constitutional/legal procedure.

3. The Ministry of Law and Justice is therefore requested to kindly look into  the above  matter  and inform Shri  Justice  C.S. Karnan,  Judge,  High  Court  of  Calcutta  about  the  procedure relating to the conducting an enquiry or constitution of an Inquiry Committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.”

A perusal of the order passed by Justice Karnan, and the letter endorsed

to  the  Supreme  Court  by  the  Rajya  Sabha  Secretariat  (Legislative

Section),  affirm the  continuation  of  his  actions  in  levelling  corruption

charges  against  Judges  by  name.   The  above  communications  also

demonstrate,  that he wished to publicize the allegations of  corruption,

against his colleague Judges.

23. At  this  juncture,  this  Court  received  a  very  interesting

communication, from the Registrar General of the High Court of Calcutta.

Justice  Karnan  had  addressed  the  above  communication  (-  dated

31

14.3.2017) to the Registrar General of the High Court of Calcutta.  The

same is extracted below:-

“To Dated the 14th March, 2017 The Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta

Respected Sir, On  9.3.2017  one  Mr.  Mathew,  Advocate,  his  Cell  no.

9820535428, came to my residence voluntarily and insisted on me to sign an order which was already prepared in my name.  In the said order I was required to give notice to the Hon’ble Judges as named below:-

1. The Chief Justice of India, Mr. Justice “… J.S.K. ...” and Justice Mr. “… D.M. …”, on the basis of a suicide note written by former Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh, which I totally deny and simultaneously directed my personal security officer to send out the said Advocate from my residence.  Accordingly he was sent out.  The copy of the writ petition and the order prepared by the above mentioned Advocate Mr. Mathew is enclosed herewith.   A detailed  enquiry  may be  conducted  on this  issue  and have  the report  submitted to  the Hon’ble  Judges as mentioned above for necessary investigation and appropriate action.”

The aforesaid communication was endorsed by the Registrar General of

the Calcutta High Court to the Supreme Court, alongwith its enclosures.

The enclosures contained the text of a writ petition filed in the name of

Bijoy Krishna Adhikary, and also, the alleged draft order, which Justice

Karnan claims, he was asked to sign.   

24. Whilst  the contempt proceedings were going on, Justice Karnan

regularly  addressed letters,  to  this  Court  with  reference to  his alleged

conduct, and the proceedings that had been initiated against him, he also

continued to  address the media on the subject.   At  this very relevant

juncture,  he  passed  another  suo-motu  judicial  order  (purportedly,

32

invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure), dated 15.3.2017.  The text of the above

order is reproduced below:-

        “IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA Suo-motu Judicial Order passed after invoking Article 226 of the

Constitution of India read with Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code.

Present Justice C.S. Karnan

To Dt. 15.03.2017 The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi

I have made a complaint before the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, against 20 Hon’ble Judges consisting of Supreme Court and High Court Judges, namely:-

“1. Mr. Justice “… S.K.K. …”; 2. Mr. Justice “… S.M.K. …”; 3. Mr. Justice “… V.R.S.M. …”; 4. Mrs. Justice “… C.V. ...”; 5. Mr. Justice “… R.S.R. ...”; 6. Mr. Justice “… R.K.A. ...”; 7. Mr. Justice “… T.S.T. ...”; 8. Mr. Justice “… M.Y.E. ...”; 9. Mr. Justice “… I.K. ...”; 10. Mr. Justice “… A.K. ...”; 11. Mr. Justice “… E.D.R. ...”; 12. Mr. Justice “… K.N.B. ...”; 13. Mr. Justice “… A.A. ...”; 14. Mrs. Justice “… A.J. ...”; 15. Mr. Justice “… V.D. ...”; 16. Mr. Justice “… M.M.S. ...”; 17. Mr. Justice “… N.K. ...”; 18. Mr. Justice “… N.N. ...”; 19. Mr. Justice “… T.R. ...”; 20. Mr. Justice “… S. ...”.

The said complaint is still pending enquiry on the file of the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India.  In the said complaint I have mentioned  10  inferences  in  order  to  probe  the  dishonesty  of Judges.

33

Under  these  circumstances  the  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court had issued Suo-motu Contempt Order on 8.2.2017 against me and also  restraining  my  judicial  and  administrative  work,  the  said order is not sustainable under law since no jurisdiction, no cause of action arise from the Supreme Court and no provision.  As such the Hon’ble Judges have misused their judicial and administrative power.   Further  the  Hon’ble  7  Judges  who  after  breaking  the Indian  Constitutional  Law  by  constituting  an  unconstitutional Bench, hence they are the contemnors since they have committed contempt of  their own Court.   Further the Hon’ble Judges have wantonly, deliberately and with mala fide intention insulted me at a public institution which amounts to harassment towards a Dalit Judge.   As  such  all  the  7  Hon’ble  Judges  have  been  squarely covered  under  the  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes Atrocities Act.  Hence, I have passed a Suo-motu Judicial Order to you on 10.03.2017 for a comprehensive enquiry and to submit the final report before the Parliament.

Now I am giving one more direction through my Suo-motu Judicial Order to conduct a detail enquiry on my complaint dated 23.1.2017 and submit the final report before the Parliament for further discussion, since it is a national issue.  Further normally a complaint if levelled by any citizen of India against whomsoever he may address, then that complaint has to be disposed of on merits which is the procedure of law.  In my case the Hon’ble 7 Judges without following the procedures of law whatsoever and by taking the  law  in  their  hands  have  operated  their  judicial  and administrative power as per their own liking, besides the Hon’ble Judges wantonly and deliberately have ignored the Hon’ble Prime Minister’s  Office  wherein  my complaint  is  pending enquiry.   As such  the  Hon’ble  Judges  have  violated  Article  219  of  the Constitution  besides  violating  the  principle  of  natural  justice besides functioning against Article 14, 21 and 19(g)(i)  which are prime Articles of the Constitution.

Therefore, on my complaint on 23.1.2017 which has to be decided on merits is of paramount importance in order to maintain the  public  confidence  and  balance  of  convenience.   Further  I undertake that I will extend my full co-operation and co-ordination to  establish  my  complaint  dated  23.1.2017  and  with  sufficient documentary proof which is available at the Madras High Court Registry.  Accordingly ordered.

1. Justice “… J.S.K. …” - Chief Justice of India 2. Justice “… D.M. …” 3. Justice “… J.C. ...”

34

4. Justice “… R.G. ...” 5. Justice “… M.B.L. ...” 6. Justice “… P.C.G. ...” 7. Justice “… K.J. ...”

My  Lords,  on  my  impugned  complaint  dated  23.1.2017 which  has  been  levelled  against  20  Judges  under  corruption charges.  Now the said complaint has to be decided on merits by the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi.  Therefore your Suo-motu Contempt Petition no. 1 of 2017 and its interim orders including bailable warrant  becomes infructuous and null and  void.   Hence  I  make  a  deep  request  to  cancel  your  above mentioned Constitutional  Bench and restore  my normal  judicial and administrative work and oblige.

Yours Sd/-

(Justice C.S. Karnan)”

It is not necessary for us to summarize the contents of the letter extracted

above.   We  have  chosen  not  to  highlight  any  portion  thereof.   The

contents  of  the  letter  however  demonstrate,  the  extent  of  malice  and

contempt in the mind of Justice Karnan against his colleague Judges.

25. On  16.3.2017,  Justice  Karnan  addressed  the  following

communication to the members of this Bench:-

“To Date: 16.03.2017

1. Justice “… J.S.K. …” - Chief Justice of India 2. Justice “… D.M. ...” 3. Justice “… J.C. … 4. Justice “… R.G. …” 5. Justice “… M.B.L. …” 6. Justice “… P.C.G. ...” 7. Justice “… K.J. ...”

My Lords, you have constituted an unconstitutional Bench after  breaking  the  Indian  Constitutional  Law  and  passed  a Suo-Motu  contempt  order  against  me  in  Suo-Motu  Contempt Petition no. 1 of 2017 wherein you have restrained my judicial and administrative work, the said order has been passed with malafide intention in order to harass a Dalit Judge (myself).

35

The factual  position of the case is that I  have levelled a complaint  dated  23.1.2017,  against  20  Judges  for  dishonesty before  the  Hon’ble  Prime  Minister  of  India  which  is  pending enquiry.  Under these circumstances, the above mentioned Hon’ble Judges have issued a Suo-Motu contempt order in order to protect the corrupt Judges.  As such the above mentioned Hon’ble Judges have also colluded with them and secured their support by way of operating judicial power out of cause of action, out of jurisdiction, out of provision and constituted a wrong forum.

Judge means a dignified person of Law who has to hear both sides of the case and pass order in accordance with law.  In the instant case the Hon’ble Judges have defended the case on behalf  of  the  20  erring  Judges.   Therefore,  the  Hon’ble  seven Judges  and  other  20  Judges  as  mentioned  are  the  Opposite parties/respondents  and  myself  a  complainant.   As  such  the Hon’ble seven Judges passed a Suo-Motu order which is illegal and improper.   Hence  I  request  you  to  cancel  the  unconstitutional Bench and restore my normal work.

However, the Hon’ble seven Judges have prevented me in carrying out my judicial  and administrative work from 8.2.2017 until now.  Therefore, I am calling up on all seven Judges to pay compensation, a sum of Rs.14 Crores (Rupees fourteen crores only) as  compensation  since  you  have  disturbed  my  mind  and  my normal  life,  besides you have insulted me in the general  public consisting of a population of 120 crores in India due to lack of legal knowledge.   Now  all  seven  Judges  shall  pay  a  part  of  the compensation within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which on the same stand of yours (same footing), I will restrain judicial and administrative work of yours.

This is for your information. Yours,

Sd/- (Justice C.S. Karnan)”

The  letter  extracted  above,  also  needs  no  further  elaboration,  and  as

such, we do not desire to substantiate the accusations levelled by Justice

Karnan therein, any further.

26. The bailable warrant issued in this case, to procure the personal

presence of Shri Justice C.S. Karnan, was served on him on 17.3.2017.

36

Having signed the same in token of being duly served, Shri Justice C.S.

Karnan recorded the following note thereon, in his own handwriting:-

“On my complaint dated 23.1.2017, the Supreme Court has issued a Suo-Motu Contempt Order.  On the same complaint, I directed the CBI to conduct a detailed enquiry and submit a final report before  the  Parliament  at  Delhi.   Under  the  circumstances  the bailable warrant is duly rejected, further I ordered to the CBI to register a criminal case against seven Judges of the Supreme Court and Attorney General under the SC/ST Atrocities Act.  As such all the seven Judges are accused under the said Act.  Hence I urge the Hon’ble seven Judges to resign their respective posts in the interest of justice and national welfare.  Therefore the Hon’ble Judges have no locus standi to proceed the Contempt Proceedings against me any further.   Since now the complaint regarding the SC/ST Act between the Hon’ble Judges and myself, I hope the Hon’ble Judges in  future  should  not  commit  such  a  kind  of  illegal  order  with malafide  intention  otherwise  the  jurisdiction  system  will deteriorate, therefore I rejected the bailable warrant produced by the Ld. DGP & IG”

Shri Justice C.S. Karnan also addressed a letter dated 17.3.2017 to the

members  of  the  Bench  hearing  this  case.   The  text  of  the  same,  is

reproduced below:-

“To Date: 17.03.2017 1. Justice “… J.S.K. …” - Chief Justice of India 2. Justice “… D.M. ...” 3. Justice “… J.C. ...” 4. Justice “… R.G. ...” 5. Justice “… M.B.L. ...” 6. Justice “… P.C.G. ...” 7. Justice “… K.J. ...”

My  Lords,  your  bailable  order  dated  10.3.2017  in  the Suo-motu Contempt Proceedings today, top Police Officers from the Calcutta  High  Court  Circle  came  to  my  residence  in  order  to execute  the  bailable  warrant  earmarked  for  10.30  am  on 31.3.2017.  I rejected the same after assigning valid reasons.  This kind  of  demeaning  acts  from  your  Lordships  and  further perpetrating the Atrocities Act is absolutely out of law to the utter embarrassment of a Dalit Judge.  Hence, I request you to stop your

37

further harassments in order to uphold the dignity and decorum of our Courts.

Yours, Sd/-

(Justice C.S. Karnan)”

27. On  31.3.2017  (the  next  date  of  hearing,  after  10.3.2017),  Shri

Justice  C.S.  Karnan  appeared  in  person,  and  advanced  submissions.

During the course of  hearing,  he also handed over  to  the Bench,  the

following signed text, dated 25.3.2017:-

“To Date: 25.03.2017 1. Justice “… J.S.K. …” - Chief Justice of India 2. Justice “… D.M. …” 3. Justice “… J.C. …” 4. Justice “… R.G. …” 5. Justice “… M.B.L. …” 6. Justice “… P.C.G. …” 7. Justice “… K.J. …”

1. Now  I  unconditionally  withdraw  my  complaint  dated 23.1.2017  against  20  Hon’ble  Judges  alleging  that  they  were dishonest in their behavior.  The said complaint addressed to the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India.  Hence I entreat this Hon’ble Court that the Suo-motu Contempt proceedings may be closed since my complaint is no more in force.

2. I unconditionally tender an apology before this Court if I committed contempt of Court.

3. I will follow Your Lordship’s advice and guide lines  in future in order to maintain the judicial system and its integrity.

4. I will  be retiring on 11.6.2017, therefore,  I make a deep request to permit me to retire from the Bench with the blessings of all brother and sister Judges of the Calcutta High Court.  Hence, I pray Your Lordships to restore my judicial and administrative work and thus render justice and oblige.

Yours, Sd/-

(Justice C.S. Karnan)”

38

A  perusal  of  the  above  communication,  reveals  an  unmistakable

acknowledgement by Justice Karnan, that he had factually addressed the

letter dated 23.1.2017, wherein, he had levelled allegations of corruption,

against 20 Judges by name.  However, in the submissions made in the

open Court,  he  reiterated  the  allegations  against  his  former  colleague

Judges.  Since the oral submissions made by Shri Justice C.S. Karnan

during the course of  hearing on 31.3.2017,  were in complete contrast

with  the  contents  of  the  note  extracted  above,  this  Court  passed  the

following fourth judicial order, on 31.3.2017:-

“1. Shri Justice C.S. Karnan has entered appearance in Court in  person.  He  was  repeatedly  asked,  whether  he  affirms  the contents  of  the  letters,  written  by him,  as  are  available  on the record of the case. He was also asked whether he would like to withdraw the allegations. The instant latter query was made on the basis of a letter dated 25.03.2017, which Shri Justice C.S. Karnan personally  handed  over  to  us,  in  Court  today.  He  has  not responded, in any affirmative manner, one way or the other. We would therefore proceed with the matter only after receipt of his written response. Shri Justice C.S. Karnan is hereby called upon to respond to  the  factual  position  indicated  in  the  various  letters, addressed by him to this Court, within four weeks from today. His response shall  be filed by way of  an affidavit.  Shri  Justice C.S. Karnan is directed to appear in Court in person on the next date of hearing.  

2. The repeated requests of Shri Justice C.S. Karnan, that he should  be  permitted  to  discharge  judicial  and  administrative duties, are declined.  

3. Post for hearing on 01.05.2017, at 10.30 A.M.”

It is pertinent to record, that after the above order had been dictated,

Justice Karnan while moving away commented, that he may be sent to

jail, but he would not appear before this Court again.

39

28. True  to  his  statement,  Shri  Justice  C.S.  Karnan  did  not  enter

appearance on next date of hearing, (on 1.5.2017).  But having viewed his

submissions  and  his  demeanour  during  the  course  of  hearing  on

31.3.2017, and having contrasted the same with the written text (- dated

25.3.2017), this Court was prima facie of the view, that he may not be in

a  fit  condition  to  defend  himself.   It  was  therefore,  that  his  medical

examination, was ordered on 1.5.2017.  The above order dated 1.5.2017 –

the fifth judicial order of the proceedings, is reproduced below:-

“1. While  issuing  notice  to  Shri  Justice  C.S.  Karnan  on 8.2.2017, this Court had directed, that Justice Karnan would forthwith  refrain  from handling  any judicial  or  administrative work, as may have been assigned to him, in furtherance of the office held by him. He was also directed to immediately return all judicial  and  administrative  files  in  his  possession  to  the Registrar General of the High Court.  

2. Ever since the initiation of these proceedings, he has been expressing further  disrespect  to  this  Court,  he  has also been making press statements with abject impunity.  However, after the  last  order  dated  31.3.2017,  he  is  stated  to  have  issued orders  (purported  to  be judicial)  against  the members of  this Bench,  as  also,  another  Hon'ble  Judge  of  this  Court.  Those orders have been received in the Registry of this Court, and are part  of  the  present  compilation.  In  order  to  ensure,  that  no Court,  Tribunal,  Commission or Authority takes cognizance of the orders passed by Shri Justice C.S. Karnan, we hereby refrain all Courts, Tribunals, Commissions or Authorities, from taking cognizance of any orders passed by Shri Justice C.S. Karnan, after the initiation of the proceeding by us on 8.2.2017.  

3. The  tenor  of  the  press  briefings,  as  also,  the  purported judicial orders passed by Shri Justice C.S. Karnan, prima facie suggest, that he may not be in a fit medical condition, to defend himself,  in  the  present  proceedings.  We  therefore  consider  it appropriate,  to  require  him to  be  medically  examined,  before proceeding further. We, accordingly, direct the Director Health Services, Government of West Bengal, to constitute a Board of Doctors from Pavlov Government Hospital, Kolkata, to examine

40

Shri  Justice  C.S.  Karnan,  and submit  a  report  to  this  Court whether or not Shri Justice C.S. Karnan is in a fit condition to defend himself. The above Board shall conduct the examination on 4.5.2017. The Director General of Police, West Bengal, shall constitute  a  team  of  police  personnel,  to  assist  the  Medical Board, in carrying out the directions, recorded hereinabove.  

4. The Medical Board shall submit its report to this Court, on or before 8.5.2017.  

5. Shri Justice C.S. Karnan may, if he is so advised, furnish his  response to  the notice issued to him on 8.2.2017,  in the meantime. In case he does not choose to file a response on or before 8.5.2017, it shall be presumed, that he has nothing to say in the matter.  

6. Post on 9.5.2017, at 10.30 A.M., for further orders.  

7. Shri  R.S.  Suri,  Senior  Advocate,  and  Shri  Ajit  Kumar Sinha,  Senior  Advocate,  President  and  Vice  President respectively, of the Supreme Court Bar Association, have made an oral request, that they may be allowed to intervene and assist this  Court  in  the  matter,  given  the  importance  of  the  issue. Prayer  is  allowed.  The  Supreme  Court  Bar  Association,  is permitted to intervene in the matter, and assist this Court, on the merits of the controversy.”

A perusal of the above order reveals, that a further direction was issued

by this Court, keeping in mind strange suo-motu judicial orders passed

by Shri Justice C.S. Karnan, from time to time.  By the instant direction,

Courts, Tribunals, Commissions and Authorities were directed not to take

cognizance of any order passed by Shri Justice C.S. Karnan, after the

initiation of the suo-motu contempt proceedings against him on 8.2.2017,

wherein he had already been restrained from handling any judicial  or

administrative work.   

29. In our considered view, it is not necessary for us to highlight all the

submissions made by Shri Justice C.S. Karnan to the media, as well as,

41

the orders passed by him.  All these orders were placed in public domain

(by Justice Karnan), well before the same were delivered to this Court.

His  interviews  with  the  media,  and  the  orders  passed  by  him  were

extremely  disparaging,  illustratively,  by  an  order  dated  13.4.2017,  he

ordered the registration of a case under the provisions of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against

all the 7 members of the Bench; by another order dated 28.4.2017, he

directed the Air Control Authority, New Delhi, not to allow any of the 7

members of the Bench to travel abroad; and by yet another order dated

7.5.2017, he sentenced all the 7 members of the Bench, and Mrs. Justice

“…  R.B.  ...”  to  5  years  rigorous  imprisonment.   All  this  was  widely

reported by the media in India, as well as, by the foreign media.  The BBC

also, reported on the issue.  

30. The matter was finally taken up for hearing on 9.5.2017.  During

the  course  of  hearing,  Shri  Rakesh  Dwivedi,  learned  senior  counsel

representing  the  State  of  West  Bengal  informed  the  Bench,  that  in

compliance  with  the  directions  issued by this  Court  on 1.5.2017,  the

Director, Health Services, Government of West Bengal had constituted a

Board of Doctors from Pavlov Government Hospital, Calcutta, to examine

Justice Karnan.  He informed this Court, that the Board of Doctors had

approached Shri Justice C.S. Karnan, at his residence (along with police

personnel).  He also informed the Bench, that Justice Karnan had met

the Board of  Doctors,  and had spoken to  them.  Justice  Karnan,  the

42

Bench was informed, told the Board of Doctors, that he was in a fit state

of health, mentally and otherwise, and needed no medical evaluation.  We

are of the view, that psychiatrists on the Board of Doctors, would have

been  in  opposition  to  evaluate  the  mental  health  of  Justice  Karnan,

during  the  above  interaction.   Had  they  found  anything  remiss,  they

would have informed this Court accordingly.  Since no report has been

submitted  by  the  Board  of  Doctors,  we  would  assume,  that  they  had

found nothing significant enough to report.  We would, therefore, accept

the assertion of Justice Karnan, that he is medically and mentally fit, to

defend himself.   

31. In the  above view of  the  matter,  we  would have to  rely  on the

defence  tendered  by  him,  in  the  form  of  various  communications

dispatched to this Court from time to time, as also, during the course of

hearing, when he appeared in person on 31.3.2017.  There is no other

alternative with us.  We had granted liberty to Justice Karnan vide our

order dated 1.5.2017, to furnish his response to the show cause notice (-

before 8.5.2017), with the clear indication, that if he choose not to file any

response, the Court would proceed with the matter by presuming, that he

had nothing more to say.

32. On the merits of the controversy, this Court was assisted by Shri

Mukul  Rohtagi,  learned Attorney General,  from time to time.   He was

unequivocal  in  his  submission,  that  Shri  Justice  C.S.  Karnan  had

consistently  committed  gross  contempt  of  this  Court.   In  view  of  the

43

factual  position which had emerged,  after  this  Court  issued the show

cause  notice  to  Shri  Justice  C.S.  Karnan  (-  on  8.2.2017),  it  was  the

pointed contention of the learned Attorney General, that Shri Justice C.S.

Karnan had also committed contempt, in the face of this Court, by openly

denouncing a large number of Judges with allegations of corruption, and

by  passing  orders  which  had  neither  any  legal  sanction  nor  any

justification.  Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General,

reiterated the above position.  Shri Rupinder Singh Suri, the President of

the  Supreme  Court  Bar  Association,  and  Shri  Ajit  Kumar  Sinha,  its

Vice-President also assisted this Court.  They were also unequivocal in

their  submission,  that  Shri  Justice  C.S.  Karnan was  guilty  of  having

consistently  and  repeatedly  committed  criminal  contempt.   Shri  K.K.

Venugopal, learned senior counsel representing the Registrar General of

the Madras High Court, while endorsing the views expressed by all the

other learned counsel, submitted that a final decision in the matter, be

deferred till such time as Shri Justice C.S. Karnan demits his office as

Judge  of  the  High  Court.   It  was  submitted,  that  Shri  Justice  C.S.

Karnan,  would  retire  on  attaining  the  age  of  superannuation  on

11.6.2017.   It  was  urged,  that  the  image  of  the  institution  would  be

tarnished, in case Shri Justice C.S. Karnan was punished for contempt of

Court, whilst he is holding the high constitutional office.   

33. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the factual position

noticed  hereinabove,  as  also,  the  submissions  advanced  by  learned

44

counsel, who assisted us during the course of hearing.  We have carefully

examined the text of the letters written by Shri Justice C.S. Karnan, from

time to time.  We have closely examined the suo-motu procedure adopted

by  him,  whereby  he  passed  orders  which  were  derogatory  to  the

administration of justice, before he was issued notice for contempt, by

this Court.  We have also carefully analysed the orders passed by Shri

Justice  C.S.  Karnan  suo-motu  (in  the  purported  exercise  of  the

jurisdiction vested in him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), even after the

issuance of the contempt notice to him, by this Court.  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 highest constitutional authorities, in all three wings of governance –

the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.  His public utterances,

turned  the  judicial  system  into  a  laughing  stock.   The  local  media,

unmindful of the damage it was causing to the judicial institution, merrily

rode the Karnan wave.  Even the foreign media, had its dig at the Indian

judiciary.  None of his actions can be considered as bona fide, especially

in  view  of  the  express  directions  issued  by  this  Court  on  8.2.2017,

requiring him to refrain from discharging any judicial or administrative

work.  To restrain his abuse of suo-motu jurisdiction, a further order had

45

to be passed by this Court on 1.5.2017, restraining Courts, Tribunals,

Commissions and Authorities from taking cognizance of any order passed

by Justice Karnan.

34. We  are  of  the  considered  view,  that  Justice  Karnan  shielded

himself  from actions,  by  trumpeting  his  position,  as  belonging  to  an

under-privileged  caste.   By  assuming  the  above  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 High Court.  The list of Judges against whom allegations were

levelled by Justice Karnan, include the following:-

1. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar  - Chief Justice of India,

2.     Justice P. Sathasivam - former Chief Justice of India,

3.     Justice T.S. Thakur - former Chief Justice of India,

4.      Justice Dipak Misra - Judge, Supreme Court of India,

5.     Justice J. Chelameswar - Judge, Supreme Court of India,

6.     Justice Ranjan Gogoi - Judge, Supreme Court of India,

7.     Justice Madan B. Lokur - Judge, Supreme Court of India,

8.     Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose - Judge, Supreme Court of

India,

9.     Justice Kurian Joseph - Judge, Supreme Court of India,

10.     Justice R.K. Agrawal - Judge, Supreme Court of India,

11.    Justice R. Banumathi - Judge, Supreme Court of India,

12.   Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul -  Judge,  Supreme Court of

India,

13.   Justice F.M.I. Kalifulla - former Judge, Supreme Court of

India,

14.  Justice M.Y. Eqbal - former Judge, Supreme Court of India,

46

15. Justice S.K. Agnihotri - Chief Justice, High Court of Sikkim,

16. Justice  R.  Sudhakar  -  Judge,  High  Court  of  Jammu  &

Kashmir,

17. Justice  V.  Ramasubramanian  -  Judge,  High  Court  of

Judicature at Hyderabad

18. Justice S. Manikumar - Judge, High Court of Madras,

19. Justice S. Nagamuthu - Judge, High Court of Madras,

20. Justice M. Sathyanarayanan - Judge, High Court of Madras,

21. Justice C.T. Selvam - Judge, High Court of Madras,

22. Justice N. Kirubakaran - Judge, High Court of Madras,

23. Justice M.M. Sundresh - Judge, High Court of Madras,

24. Justice T. Raja - Judge, High Court of Madras,

25. Justice  K.  Swamidurai  -  former  Judge,  High  Court  of

Madras,

26. Justice Chitra Venkataraman - former Judge, High Court of

Madras,

27. Justice K.N. Basha - former Judge, High Court of Madras,

28. Justice  V.  Dhanapalan  -  former  Judge,  High  Court  of

Madras,

29. Justice  S.  Tamilvanan  -  former  Judge,  High  Court  of

Madras,

30. Justice Elipe  Dharma Rao -  former Judge,  High Court  of

Madras,

31. Justice  R.S.  Ramanathan  -  former  Judge,  High  Court  of

Madras,

32. Justice  Aruna  Jagdeesan  -  former  Judge,  High  Court  of

Madras,

33. Justice  G.M.  Akbar  Ali  -  former  Judge,  High  Court  of

Madras.

47

35. None of the allegations levelled by Justice Karnan 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  contents  of  his

communications,  to  the  desired  circles.   Some  of  his  letters  were

intentionally  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 the instant contempt petition, his ridicule of the

Supreme Court remained unabated.  In fact, it was heightened, as never

before.  In this process, he even stayed orders passed by this Court.  One

of the orders passed by him, restrained the Judges on this Bench, from

leaving the country.  By another order he convicted the Judges on this

Bench, besides another Judge of this Court,  and sentenced them to 5

years imprisonment, besides imposing individual costs on the convicted

Judges.  In the background of the factual position summarized above,

while disposing of the suo-motu contempt petition on 9.5.2017, we had

directed, that no further statements issued by Shri Justice C.S. Karnan

would  be  publicized.   The  instant  restraint  order,  however,  does  not

prevent  or  hinder  any  public  debate  on  the  matter,  academic  or

otherwise.  We have not restricted, the media in any manner, other than,

to  the  limited  extent  expressed  above.   We  hope  and  expect,  that  a

48

meaningful  debate,  would  lead  to  a  wholesome  understanding  of  the

issue, from all possible perspectives.

36. From the  narration  expressed  in  the  preceding  paragraphs,  we

have no hesitation in concluding, that the actions of Shri Justice C.S.

Karnan 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.  We are

satisfied  that  he  should  be  punished  for  his  above  actions,  with

imprisonment for six months.  Ordered accordingly.

.…………………………CJI. (Jagdish Singh Khehar)

………………….…………J. (Dipak Misra)

separate order recorded ………………….…………J. (J. Chelameswar)

separate order recorded ………………….…………J. (Ranjan Gogoi)

………………….…………J. (Madan B. Lokur)

………………….…………J. (Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

………………….…………J. (Kurian Joseph)

49

New Delhi; May 9, 2017.

Note: The  emphasis  supplied  in  all  the  quotations  in  the  instant judgment, are ours.

50

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

SUO MOTO CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1 OF 2017

In Re: Hon’ble Shri Justice C.S. Karnan

J U D G M E N T

Chelameswar, J.  

1. This case raises many important questions.    The factual

background  of  the  case  is  given  in  detail  in  the  judgment  of

Hon’ble  the  Chief  Justice  of  India.  Therefore,  we  propose  to

mention only the bare minimum.    

2. The contemnor’s name was recommended for elevation by

the  Collegium  of  the  Madras  High  Court  i.e.  the  then  Chief

Justice and two senior most judges.  After the completion of the

51

ritual of the necessary appointment process contemplated under

the Constitution as interpreted by this Court in the  Second and

Third Judges Cases1, he was appointed on 30th March 2009.

3. Whether the conduct  of  the contemnor subsequent to his

elevation is consistent with the conventionally accepted norms of

decorum expected of a member of the judiciary-more particularly

of a constitutional court must remain a puzzle.  The contemnor

has been in the habit of addressing letters containing allegations

of corruption and commission of various offences by the Judges

and successive Chief  Justices of  the Madras High Court.   The

contents  of  some of  those  letters  have  been mentioned  in  the

judgment of Hon’ble the Chief Justice.  They need no reiteration.

The current proceeding is not an inquisition either into any one of

those allegations 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 in this country.  In our opinion, the

1

Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 441 and Special Reference No.1 of 1998 (1998) 7 SCC 739

52

facts relevant for recording the conviction and sentence by order

of this Court dated 9th May, 2017 are limited.   

4. The contemnor addressed two letters2 to the Prime Minister

of  India.  Copies  of  the  same  are  marked  to  various  other

constitutional functionaries including the Chief Justice of India.

These letters contained allegations (1) that the selection process

of  the  judges  of  the  constitutional  courts  of  this  country  is

unwholesome, (2) of corruption against various judges and Chief

Justices  of  the  Madras  High  Court,  (3)  of  the  commission  of

certain offences (rape) against one of  the judges of  the Madras

High Court and (4) that the conduct of some of the judges of the

Madras High Court which (according to the contemnor) constitute

offences  under  the  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.  The details of these various

allegations  are  to  be  found  in  the  above-mentioned  letters

addressed  to  the  Prime  Minister  and  other  documents  which

constitute  a  part  of  the  administrative  record  of  this  Court

referred to in the judgment of the Chief Justice of India.

2

Letter No.I – dated 03.01.2017 & Letter No.II – undated, but sometimes in  February 2017

53

5. Whether those various allegations made by the contemnor

are based on any evidence to establish the truth of the allegations

is a matter which cannot be examined in these proceedings.  The

allegations  are  too  vague  and  some  of  them  even  incoherent.

Whether any one of those alleged misdeeds of the judges of the

Madras High Court referred to by the contemnor constitute any

offence or actionable wrong under any law of the land requires an

enquiry.  If the contemnor believes and has the material with him

to establish that some of the Judges of the Madras High Court are

corrupt or otherwise guilty of some offences known to law, he is

required  to  approach  the  appropriate  forum  competent  to

examine those allegations.  What is the appropriate forum and

procedure which the contemnor is required to follow for setting

the  law  in  motion  w.r.t.  each  of  the  allegations  made  by  the

contemnor are questions to be examined in detail.   

6. Such  complaints,  if  made  to  the  appropriate

forum/authority  are  required  to  be  investigated  in  accordance

with the procedure established by law relevant in the context of

each  of  those  allegations  and  appropriate  further  legal

54

proceedings  are  to  be  initiated,  if  the  investigation reveals  the

commission of  any offence cognizable or non-cognizable or any

other actionable wrong.   

7. If there is any truth in any one of those allegations made by

the contemnor against any one of the judges named by him, it is

too  serious  a  matter  and  requires  appropriate  action  in

accordance with the constitution and the law in the interest of

both the purity of the judiciary and the constitutional governance

of this nation.

8. The contemnor who claims to have knowledge of the various

alleged misdeeds of the judges of the Madras High Court at best

can be a complainant or informant.   If an appropriate enquiry is

initiated  into  any  one  or  all  of  the  allegations  made  by  the

contemnor, he would figure as a witness to establish the truth of

the  allegations  made  by  him.  Unfortunately  the  contemnor

appears to be oblivious of one of the fundamental principles of

law that a complainant/informant cannot be a judge in his own

complaint.   The contemnor on more than one occasion “passed

orders  purporting  to  be  in  exercise  of  his  judicial  functions”

55

commanding various authorities of the states to take legal action

against various judges of the Madras High Court on the basis of

the allegations made by him from time to time.

9. Whether all the above-mentioned conduct amounts to either

“proved misbehavior” or “incapacity” within the meaning of Article

124(4)  read  with  Article  217(1)(b)  of  the  Constitution  of  India

warranting the impeachment of the contemnor is a matter which

requires a very critical examination. If the contemnor is unable to

prove the various allegations made against judges of the Madras

High  Court,  what  legal  consequences  would  follow  from  such

failure also requires an examination.   Probably,  the contemnor

would  be  amenable  for  action  in  accordance  with  law  for

defamation,  both civil  and criminal  apart  from any other  legal

consequences.

10. But  the  frequency  and gravity  with  which  the  contemnor

made such allegations against his colleagues and the manner in

which  such  allegations  are  made  public,  certainly  would  have

some adverse impact on the reputation of the individual judges

against whom allegations are made, the image of the Madras High

56

Court and perhaps is likely to undermine the credibility of the

judiciary in this country. Consequently, the activity of contemnor

required  scrutiny  to  determine  whether  the  same  would

constitute contempt of court.  In spite of the repeated episodes of

the  accusations  by  the  contemnor,  no  authority  under  the

Constitution of India competent to examine the allegations ever

thought it  necessary to act upon the contemnor’s  accusations.

But that did not deter the contemnor.   His activity continued

unabated.  

11. Therefore, there arose a necessity to examine whether the

conduct of the contemnor constitutes contempt of court.   If only

the  contemnor  appropriately  participated  in  the  proceedings

before the Court, a correct answer could have been found.  

12. But one thing appears to be certain.  If the above mentioned

conduct  constitutes  contempt,  it  surely  can  only  be  criminal

contempt falling under the head of scandalising the Court.

13. Faced with an unprecedented situation resulting from the

incessant questionable conduct of the contemnor perhaps made

57

the  Chief  Justice  of  India come to  the  conclusion that  all  the

above-mentioned  questions  could  better  be  examined  by  this

court  on  the  judicial  side.   We  see  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  Karnan

tantamounts  to  contempt  of  court  and  therefore  appropriate

action be taken 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, in our opinion, the

fact that the present contempt proceedings are initiated suo motu

by this court makes no difference to its maintainability. If only

the contemnor appropriately participated in the proceedings, all

the above-mentioned questions and perhaps many more question

incidental  to  them  could  have  been  properly  examined  and

necessary conclusions could have been recorded.

14. 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

58

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 Constitution –

whatever  be  his  “conduct”  and  “misconduct”,  a  stand  which

clearly is untenable in law.   He did not stop there.  He believed

that the initiation of contempt proceedings by this Court against

him would constitute 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 only

believed so, but also purported to pass certain orders 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, the details of which are

given in paragraphs 22 to 26.   In substance, (i) he accused the

members of  this Bench guilty of  prejudice against him, (ii)  “he

declared” that the initiation of contempt proceedings against him

is  malafide judicial  action  apart  from  constituting  an  offence

59

under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989.

15. Before we record the reasons which prompted us to be a

signatory  to  the  order  dated  9th May,  2017,  we  deem  it

appropriate  to  briefly  indicate  nature  of  the  authority  of  the

constitutional courts to punish the perpetrators of contumacious

action.

16. The authority to punish for contempt of court has always

been exercised by the judiciary from times immemorial3.    The

justification for the existence of that is not to afford protection to

individual judges4 but to inspire confidence in the sanctity and

3

In  one  of  the  earliest  legal  pronouncements  dealing  with  the  subject,  Justice Wilmot in Rex v. Almon (1765) Wilmot’s Notes, 243 explained the philosophy behind the power to punish for contempt of court.  The passage now a classic exposition runs as follows:

“And  whenever  men’s  allegiance  to  the  law  is  so  fundamentally shaken, it is the most fatal and most dangerous obstruction of justice and in my opinion calls out for a more rapid and immediate redress than any obstruction  whatsoever,  not  for  the  sake  of  the  Judges  as  private individuals but because they are the channels by which the King’s justice is conveyed to the people ……….”

4

“The  law  of  contempt  is  not  made  for  the  protection  of  judges  who  may  be sensitive to the winds of public opinion. Judges are supposed to be men of fortitude, able to thrive in a hardy climate.” [ Douglas, J., Craig v. Harney, 331 US 367, 376 (1947)]

60

efficacy of the judiciary5, 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.   

17. 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.   

18. This  Court  in  E.M.  Sankaran  Namboodripad v. T.

Narayanan Nambiar, (1970) 2 SCC 325, observed:

“6. The law of contempt stems from the right of the courts to punish by imprisonment or fines persons guilty of words or acts which either obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice. This right is exercised in India by all courts when contempt is committed in facie curaie and by the superior courts on their own behalf or on behalf of courts  subordinate  to  them  even  if  committed  outside  the  courts. Formerly,  it  was regarded as inherent  in  the powers  of  a  Court  of Record and now by the Constitution of India, it is a part of the powers of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. …”  

5

“The object of the discipline enforced by the Court in case of contempt of Court is not to vindicate the dignity of the Court or the person of the Judge, but to prevent undue interference with the administration of justice.” [Bowen, L.J. - Helmore v. Smith, (1887) 35 Ch D 449, 455]

61

19. This Court on more than one occasion examined the nature

and scope of the power to punish for contempt.  In R.L. Kapur v.

State of Madras,  (1972) 1 SCC 651, this Court examined the

question whether the power of the Madras High Court to punish

for contempt of  itself  arose under the Contempt of Courts Act,

1952.  The Court held as follows:

“Para 5.    … Article 215 declares that every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. Whether Article 215 declares the power of the High Court already existing in it by reason of its being a court of record, or whether the article confers the power as inherent in a court of record, the jurisdiction is a special one, not arising or derived from the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 … In any case, so far as contempt of the High Court itself  is concerned, as distinguished from that of a court subordinate to it, the Constitution vests these rights in every High Court, and so no Act of a Legislature could take away  that  jurisdiction  and  confer  it  afresh  by  virtue  of  its  own authority. …”

Subsequently,  in  Pritam  Pal  v. High  Court  of  Madhya

Pradesh, Jabalpur,  1993 Supp (1) SCC 529, another Bench of

this Court opined as follows:

“Para 15. Prior to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, it was held that the High Court has inherent power to deal with a contempt of itself summarily and to adopt its own procedure, provided that it gives a fair and reasonable opportunity to the contemnor to defend himself. But the procedure has now been prescribed by Section 15 of the Act in exercise of the powers conferred by Entry 14, List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Though the contempt jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the High Court can be regulated by legislation by appropriate legislature under Entry 77 of List I and Entry 14 of List III in exercise of which the Parliament has enacted the Act of 1971, the

62

contempt jurisdiction of  the Supreme Court  and the High Court  is given a constitutional foundation by declaring to be ‘Courts of Record’ under  Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution and, therefore,  the inherent power of the Supreme Court and the High Court cannot be taken away by any legislation short of constitutional amendment. …”  

It  further  indicated  the  various  forms  of  contumacious  action

constituting criminal contempt.  Scandalising the court is one of

them.

“There are many kinds of contempts. The chief forms of contempt are insult  to  Judges,  attacks  upon  them,  comment  on  pending proceedings  with  a  tendency  to  prejudice  fair  trial,  obstruction  to officers of courts, witnesses or the parties, abusing the process of the court,  breach  of  duty  by  officers  connected  with  the  court  and scandalising the Judges or the courts. The last form occurs, generally speaking, when the conduct of a person tends to bring the authority and administration  of  the law into  disrespect  or  disregard.  In  this conduct are included all acts which bring the court into disrepute or disrespect or which offend its dignity, affront its majesty or challenge its authority. Such contempt may be committed in respect of a Single Judge  or  a  single  court  but  may,  in  certain  circumstances,  be committed in respect of the whole of the judiciary or judicial system.”6

20. The  exercise  of  such  a  power  has  always  been  very

infrequent  and  subjected  to  some  discipline.  Members  of  the

Judiciary have always been conscious7 of the fact that the power

6

E.M. Sankaran Namboodripad v. T. Narayanan Nambiar, (1970) 2 SCC 325,  para 6

7

Shri Baradakanta Mishra  v.  The Registrar of Orissa High Court & Another, (1974) 1 SCC 374 (Hon. Iyer, J. – separate but concurring opinion)

63

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.”8  

In a judgment rendered almost  a decade back,  one of  us

(Gogoi, J.) sitting in the Gauhati High Court held9:

“Para 65. Before stating the principles of law bearing on the facets of contempt of court raised in this case we would like to underscore the need to draw the lines clear enough  to  create  confidence  in  the  people  that  this  ancient  and  inherent  power, intended to preserve the faith of the public in public justice, will not be so used as to provoke  public  hostility  as  overtook  the  Star  Chamber.  A  vague  and  wandering jurisdiction with uncertain frontiers, a sensitive and suspect power to punish vested in the prosecutor, a law which makes it a crime to publish regardless of truth and public good and permits a process of brevi manu conviction, may unwittingly trench upon civil liberties and so the special jurisdiction and jurisprudence bearing on contempt power must be delineated with deliberation and operated with serious circumspection by the higher judicial echelons. So it is that as the palladium of our freedoms, the Supreme Court and the High Courts,  must vigilantly protect free speech even against  judicial umbrage  —  a  delicate  but  sacred  duty  whose  discharge  demands  tolerance  and detachment of a high order.

Para 67. Considerations such as we have silhouetted led to the enactment of the Contempt  of  Courts  Act,  1971,  which  makes  some  restrictive  departures  from  the traditional  law  and  implies  some  wholesome  principles  which  serve  as  unspoken guidelines in this branch of law. …”

8

Ibid, Para 82 at page 409

9

2008(1) GLT 800 – In re:  Lalit Kalita & Others   

64

“14.  Judiciary  is  not  over-sensitive  to  criticism;  in  fact,  bona  fide criticism  is  welcome,  perhaps,  because  it  opens  the  doors  to self-introspection. Judges are not infallible; they are humans and they often  err,  though,  inadvertently  and  because  of  their  individual perceptions.  In  such  a  situation,  fair  criticism  of  the  viewpoint expressed  in  a  judicial  pronouncement  or  even  of  other  forms  of judicial  conduct,  is consistent with public interest  and public good that  Judges  are  committed  to  serve  and  uphold.  The  system  of administration of justice, therefore, would receive due impetus from a realization amongst  Judges that they can or have actually erred in their  judgments;  another  perspective,  a  new  dimension  or  insight must, therefore, always be welcome. Such a realization which would really enhance the majesty of the Rule of Law, will only be possible if the doors of self-assessment, in the light of the opinions of others, are kept open by Judges.

16. But when should silence cease to remain an option? Where is the line  to  be  drawn?  A  contemptuous  action  is  punishable  on  the touchstone of being a wrong to the public as distinguished from the harm caused to the individual Judge. Public confidence in the judicial system is indispensable. Its erosion is fatal. Of course, Judges by their own conduct, action and performance of duties must earn and enjoy the  public  confidence  and  not  by  the  application  of  the  rule  of contempt. Criticism could be of the underlying principle of a judicial verdict or its rationale or reasoning and even its correctness. Criticism could be of the conduct of an individual Judge or a group of Judges. Whichever  manner  the  criticism  is  made  it  must  be  dignified  in language  and content  because  crude  expressions or  manifestations are more capable of identification of the alleged wrong with the system as  a  whole.  Motives,  personal  interest,  bias,  pre-disposition  etc. cannot  be  permitted  to  be  attributed  as  being  responsible  for  the judicial verdict, unless, of course, the same can be established as an existing fact. It is the above category of acts or publications that would fall within the prohibited degree warranting action in contempt law.”

21. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 recognises two forms of

contempt  –  civil  and criminal.   Such a distinction  has always

been made in this country ever since the present legal system was

introduced  by  the  British.   Civil  contempt  is  defined  under

65

Section 2(b)10 to be “wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction,

order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a

court.”   

Section 2(c) defines criminal contempt.

“Section 2(c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by  words,  spoken  or  written,  or  by  signs,  or  by  visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which-

(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or  

(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or  

(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to  obstruct,  the  administration  of  justice  in  any  other manner;”

It can be seen from the above that any act which scandalises or

tends to scandalise the authority of the Court and interference or

obstruction of the administration of justice in any manner are two

forms of contumacious action.

10

Section 2 (b) “civil contempt” means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court.

66

22. It must be mentioned here that Great Britain from which we

have adopted the present legal system11 abolished the offence of

criminal  contempt  on  the  ground  of  scandalising  the  court

pursuant to the recommendation of the Law Commission dated

12th December, 201212.   

After discussing the various suggestions received and their

implications, the Law Commission opined at para 91:

11

“Para 34. It will be seen that the terminology used in the definition is borrowed from the English Law of Contempt and embodies concepts which are familiar to that Law which, by and large, was applied in India. The expressions “scandalize”, “lowering the authority  of  the  Court”,  “interference”,  “obstruction”  and “administration  of  justice” have all gone into the legal currency of our sub-continent and have to be understood in the sense in which they have been so far understood by our Courts with the aid of the English Law, where necessary.” – Shri Baradakanta Mishra’s case – See Footnote 6 supra

12

One of the consideration which weighed with the Law Commission for recommending abolition of the offence of criminal contempt is the fact that there are other enactments such as Public Order Act, 1986 and the Communications Act, 2003 which can sufficiently take care of the situations where unfounded allegations which would otherwise have constituted offence of scandilising the court are made.

“80.   There  are  several  criminal  offences  some  of  the  same behaviour  that  can  constitute  scandalising  the  court,  and  these  would continue  to  be  available  whether  or  not  the  offence  of  scandalising  is abolished.”

67

“91. One question is whether these offences are capable of covering publications making collective accusations against the judiciary or a section  of  it  rather  than  an  individual  judge.   If  the  material  is sufficiently offensive or threatening, it could in principle be covered by the Public Order Act 1986 or the Communications Act 2003.  It  is unlikely to fall within the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or the Protection from Harassment Act 1997,  which are mainly concerned with conduct aimed at individuals.”

and finally  recorded its  conclusions  at  para 93.   The relevant

portion is:

“93. xxx xxx xxx

(11) There are several statutory offences covering the more serious forms  of  behavior  covered  by  scandalising,  and  civil  defamation proceedings are available in the case of false accusations of corruption or misconduct.”

and recommended-

“94. Accordingly, we see no reason to alter our first preference as expressed  in  the  consultation  paper,  namely  the  abolition  of scandalising the court without replacement.”

23. The American law in this regard appears to be more liberal

with greater emphasis on freedom of speech.  We do not wish to

undertake any elaborate analysis of the American jurisprudence

for  the  present  purpose.   Borrowing  a  passage  from the  Law

68

Commission’s Report of United Kingdom on “Contempt of Court :

Scandalising  the  Court  (Contempt  of  Court  :  Scandalising  The

Court”13 would suffice:

“Para  46.  In  summary,  on  a  North  American  approach,  the  entire offence  of  scandalising  may  well  be  both  unconstitutional  and contrary to human rights.”

With  reference  to  other  common  law  countries,  the  Law

Commission summarized the position as follows:  

“United States law traditionally regards freedom of speech, as enshrined in the First Amendment, as  the paramount right that prevails over all others in case of conflict, unless there is a “clear and  present  danger  that  [the  words]  will  bring  about  the substantive evils  that Congress has a right to prevent” [(1919) 249 US 47, 51 to 52].  Other common law countries,  such as England and Wales and Australia, by contrast, acknowledge the importance  of   freedom of  speech,  but regard it  as one right among  others,  with  any  conflict  being  resolved  by  way  of  a balancing exercise.  [Justice R. Sackville,  “How Fragile Are the courts?  Freedom  of  Speech  and  Criticism  of  the  Judiciary” (2005)]. In our consultation paper we drew attention to the same contrast. The position in Canada remained uncertain until the court in Kopyto ((1987) 47 DLR (4th) 213 (Ont CA)], disapproving of the scandalising offence, appeared to adopt an approach near to  that  of  the  United  States.  New Zealand  declined  to  follow Kopyto [(1993) NZHC 423 :  [1994) 1 NZLR 48], thus remaining in the Anglo-Australian camp.”

13

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)]:

69

24. However, in India scandalising the Court is still recognized

to be an act constituting contempt of court.14  Though what is the

activity  which  constitutes  scandalisation  of  the  Court  is  not

defined or very precisely explained in the above-mentioned cases,

individuals were held guilty of contempt of court on the ground

that their deeds scandalized the Court.

25. Interference with the due course of any judicial proceeding

is  another  facet  of  criminal  contempt.   The  conduct  of  the

contemnor  subsequent  to  the  initiation  of  suo  motu contempt

petition No.1 of 2017 in purporting to pass various orders, the

details of which are contained in paragraphs 22 to 26 of judgment

of  Chief  Justice  of  India  leaves  no  scope  for  doubt  about  the

question whether such conduct would amount to interfering with

the judicial 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

14

(1974) 1 SCC 374 - Shri Baradakanta Mishra v. The Registrar of Orissa High Court & Another;  

   (2002) 3 SCC 343 - In re: Arundhati Roy

70

commission of contempt brought against him by the initial notice

of the Court dated 08.02.2017.  Rather, he chose to engage in a

tirade challenging the very 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 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, what we

have before us is a Judge who has crossed even the most liberal

standards  of  expected  and  permissible  expression  of  opinion.

There is no doubt in our mind that such conduct on the part of

the contemnor has brought disrepute to the judicial system and

has 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.

71

The conduct of the contemnor during the pendency of the

proceedings in this Court certainly constitutes criminal contempt

falling both under the heads of scandalising the court as well as

interference with the proceedings of this court.  In our view, the

contemnor is therefore liable to be punished for the contempt of

this court.

26. This case, in our opinion, 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

regime to deal with situations where the conduct of a Judge of a

constitutional  court  requires  corrective  measures  -  other  than

impeachment – to be taken.

27. 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 the

time of recommending his name for elevation.  Our purpose is not

to  point  fingers  to  individuals  who  were  responsible  for

recommendation but only to highlight the system’s failure of not

72

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 for appointment to be a member of a 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.    

28. We  are  only  sad  to  point  out  that  apart  from  the

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.

29. The framers of the Constitution were people of a great sense

of patriotism and maturity, men and women who maintained high

standards of civic morality.  Obviously, 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  (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

73

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  made  in  the  Constitution  for  impeachment  of

holders  of  various  constitutional  offices  starting  from  the

President of India.   

30. 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

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.  May be it is time for the nation to debate

this issue.

………………………..J.                                                       (J Chelameswar)         

………………………..J.                                                        (Ranjan Gogoi)

New Delhi;

July 4, 2017

74

ITEM NO.701             COURT NO.1               SECTION XVII                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION(C) No. 1/2017

IN RE  : SRI JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN                               

WITH SLP(C) No. 14842/2015 (With  WITH  APPLN.  (S)  FOR  directions  and  intervention  and PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON and Interim Relief and Office Report)

Date : 09/05/2017 These petitions were called on for hearing  today.

CORAM :           HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR

   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH

Present:

For State of West Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv.  Bengal Mr. Chanchal Kr. Ganguli, Adv.

Ms. Narmada, Adv.

For UOI Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG Ms. Madhvi Divan, Adv. Mr. Nalin Kohli, Adv. Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Adv. Mr. Prabhash Bajaj, Adv.

For Registrar Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv. General, High Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, Adv. Court of Madras Mr. N. Sai Vinod, Adv.

Ms. Smriti Shah, Adv. Mr. Divyanshu Rai, Adv.

75

Supreme Court Mr. Rupinder Singh Suri, Sr. Adv. Bar Asson. Mr. Ajit Kr. Sinha, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Gaurav Bhatia, Adv.

Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Adv. Ms. Nithya, Adv. Mrs. Maha Lakshmi, Adv. Mr. Partha Sarathi, Adv. Ms. Uttara Babbar, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Choudhary, Adv.

    UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                              O R D E R

This  is  in  continuation  of  this  Court's  earlier order  dated  09.05.2017,  disposing  of  the  Suo  Motu  Contempt Petition, holding Sri Justice C.S. Karnan guilty of committing contempt and sentencing him for six months imprisonment, the reasons for the same have been recorded in the two separate Reportable signed orders, which are placed on the file.

 (Renuka Sadana) (Parveen Kumar) Assistant Registrar                       AR-cum-PS [Reportable two signed orders are placed on the file]

76

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION(C) NO.1/2017

In Re:  Sri Justice C.S. Karnan

O R D E R

1. We  have  heard  Mr.  Rakesh  Dwivedi,  learned  senior counsel representing the State of West Bengal, with reference to  the  medical  examination  of  Sri  Justice  C.S.  Karnan,  as also, Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of  India,  Mr.  K.K.Venugopal,  learned  senior  counsel representing the Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Madras, and Mr. Rupinder Singh Suri, Senior Advocate, in his  capacity  as  the  President  of  the  Supreme  Court  Bar Association.

2. On merits, we are of the considered view, that Sri Justice C.S. Karnan, has committed contempt of the judiciary. His  actions  constitute  contempt  of  this  Court,  and  of  the judiciary of the gravest nature.  Having found him guilty of committing  contempt,  we  convict  him  accordingly.   We  are satisfied to punish him by sentencing him to imprisonment for six months. As a consequence, the contemnor shall not perform any administrative or judicial functions.

3. Detailed order to follow.

77

4. The sentence of six months imposed by this Court on Sri Justice C.S. Karnan, shall be executed forthwith, by the Director General of Police, West Bengal, or through a team constituted by him.

5. Since  the  incident  of  contempt  includes  public statements and publication of orders made by the contemnor, which were highlighted by the electronic and print media, we are of the view, that no further statements made by him should be published hereafter.  Ordered accordingly.

6. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

…....................CJI [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR]

….....................J. [DIPAK MISRA]

….....................J. [J. CHELAMESWAR]

….....................J. [RANJAN GOGOI]

….....................J. [MADAN B. LOKUR]

….....................J. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE]

NEW DELHI; ….....................J. MAY 09, 2017. [KURIAN JOSEPH]   

78

ITEM NO.701             COURT NO.1               SECTION XVII                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION(C) No. 1/2017

IN RE  : SRI JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN                               

WITH SLP(C) No. 14842/2015 (With  WITH  APPLN.  (S)  FOR  directions  and  intervention  and PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON and Interim Relief and Office Report)

Date : 09/05/2017 These petitions were called on for hearing  today.

CORAM :           HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR

   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH

Present:

For State of West Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv.  Bengal Mr. Chanchal Kr. Ganguli, Adv.

Ms. Narmada, Adv.

For UOI Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG Ms. Madhvi Divan, Adv. Mr. Nalin Kohli, Adv. Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Adv. Mr. Prabhash Bajaj, Adv.

For Registrar Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv. General, High Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, Adv. Court of Madras Mr. N. Sai Vinod, Adv.

Ms. Smriti Shah, Adv. Mr. Divyanshu Rai, Adv.

79

Supreme Court Mr. Rupinder Singh Suri, Sr. Adv. Bar Asson. Mr. Ajit Kr. Sinha, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Gaurav Bhatia, Adv.

Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Adv. Ms. Nithya, Adv. Mrs. Maha Lakshmi, Adv. Mr. Partha Sarathi, Adv. Ms. Uttara Babbar, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Choudhary, Adv.

         UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the  following                              O R D E R

Suo Motu Contempt Petition stands disposed of, in terms of the signed order.

List  the  special  leave  petition  no.  14842/2015 before the regular Bench.

 (Renuka Sadana) (Parveen Kumar) Assistant Registrar                       AR-cum-PS                   [signed order is placed on the file]

80