Justice CS Karnan - Victim Of Lucrative Sanctions

Never before has a judicial dictum been so self-annihilating than what it turned out to be in the recent case of Justice CS Karnan of Calcutta High Court. His ploy to dictate his terms, however, ended on Wednesday (21 June) with his arrest from Coimbatore after being at large since May 9.

Justice Karnan was accused of transcending constitutional boundary to stir up a hornet’s nest. In a trial of strength, he sentenced seven sitting judges of Supreme Court - including Chief Justice of India - to five-year imprisonment. An exasperated apex Court had to sentence him - a sitting judge of the High Court - to a six-month jail term. But the questions are: What led Justice Karnan to lock horns with his superiors? Was he not aware of his judicious purview? Was he unencumbered by eventual consequences of his actions or was he a megalomaniac?

In the light of Justice Karnan’s initiatives to defend his alleged extra constitutional move to protect interests of the judicial system by seeking the Prime Minister’s intervention, he appeared to be neither in conversant about legal obligations he was supposed to comply with while exercising his official conduct nor was he unfazed about the sinister implications of his self-styled crusade. Justice Karnan is, in fact, a victim of the lucrative provisions of constitutional sanctions that often enable one at the helm of affairs to act in an improper manner. In fact, he brazenly defied the set official decorum that he was sworn in to maintain when he joined the profession.

The controversy began in January when Karnan wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to order an investigation against judges of the Madras high court and the apex court of corruption. But whatever crusade Karnan intended to carry out against corruption in judicial system was not found to be in consonance with the interpretation of the constitutional sanctions that were granted to him to discharge his duties within the purview of the law. Being a High Court judge, he had the power to decide graft cases in his court room, but he was not supposed to invoke his powers to mo-bilise powers-that-be to make crackdown on the corrupt practices. If in the case of issuing writs, the High Court has more power than the Supreme Court, it does not mean that the HC is empowered to prevail upon the jurisdiction of the apex court in the garb of pro-visions of the constitution.

Notably, the High Court has been given the right to issue writs for the protection of fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 32 and 226. The competence of the High Court in this field is larger than that of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can issue writs only in cases of infringement of fundamental rights. But the High Court can issue writs also in cases of infringement of ordinary legal rights.

In the light of the Karnan’s ploy, it is believed that he tried to carry out his tirade against the apex court in the garb of protecting his fundamental rights under the cover of ST/SC Act (Prevention of Atrocity Act) 2015. Justice Karnan refused to comply with the order of the apex court to reply to the show cause served on him for writing to the Prime Minister about corruption in the judiciary and alleged that since he was a Dalit-under SC category- he was being harassed.

On February 8, the Supreme Court found him in contempt. He was asked for an explanation but he repeatedly ignored the orders of the court. On March 10, the court issued a bailable war-rant and took away judicial work from him.

He rejected the warrant and accused his colleagues and sen-iors of caste bias, saying he was being singled out for being a Dalit. Subsequently, Karnan waged a virtual war against Supreme Court judges and sentenced 7 judges of the Supreme Court- including Chief Justice of India to five-year jail under ST/SC Act convicting them of contempt.

Incidentally, although the Constitution is silent about the power of the Supreme Court to sentence a sitting judge of the High Court to jail and lays down provisions of impeachment to remove a High Court judge on the ground of misconduct, Karnan was sentenced to jail without initiating the set procedures for impeachment. He was divested of his powers and sentenced to jail in a contempt case like an ordinary accused.

However, in this war of attrition, neither Karnan had reasons to react to explanations sought by the apex court for his alleged misconduct nor did the judges of the Supreme Court seemingly have explanations to ignore impeachment procedures and exercise their discretion to award a six-month jail term to Karnan like an ordinary accused instead.

Impeachment Procedure:

Article 124(4) dealing with the removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court says that a Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.

Similarly Article 217 (1)(b) and 218 deals with the removal of the Judge of an High Court. It says that a judge of a High Court may be removed on the ground of proven misbehavior or incapacity. A judge may be removed only through a motion in Parliament with a two-thirds support in each House. The process is laid down in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

The motion of impeachment:

An impeachment motion has to be moved by either 100 Lok Sabha members of Parliament or 50 Rajya Sabha Members. After the motion is admitted, the Speaker of Lok Sabha or Chair-man of Rajya Sabha constitutes an inquiry committee. This inquiry committee consists of 3 members viz. A Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice and an eminent jurist. The Committee frames charges and asks the judge to give a written response. After the inquiry, the committee determines whether the charges are valid or not. It then submits its report. The judge is given a chance to examine the witnesses. If the inquiry committee finds that the judge is not guilty, then there is no further action.

But If the enquiry finds him guilty, then the House of Parliament which initiated the motion may continue with. Notably, such motion can be initiated in any house of the parliament. Then, the motion is debated. During debate, the judge has the right to represent his / her case. After that, the motion is voted upon. If there is two-thirds support of those voting, and majority support of the total strength of the House, it is considered to have passed. The process is then repeated in the other House. After that, the Houses send an address to the President asking that the judge be removed from office.

There has been, however, a single case so far when the impeachment procedure could not survive for want of ratification by the Lok Sabha. Justice V Ramaswamy of the Supreme Court faced such a motion. The inquiry committee found that the charges against him were valid, but the motion to impeach him could not muster the required support in Lok Sabha.

Incidentally, the Calcutta High Court that has had accolade of being the first High Court of the country, earned a bad reputation in the past too. Earlier, Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court was the only High Court judge in independent India who had to face impeachment procedure for misappropriation of funds and misrepresentation of facts.

To top it all, whether it is Justice Karnan or the seven-member bench of the Supreme Court, the way these custodians of judiciary - who are also considered to be custodians of the Constitution - dealt with the worst ever judicial crisis while attempting to salvage credentials of the system as a whole in their respective manners, it does not augur well for enduring relevance of the Constitutional guidelines in discharge of judicial dictums in particular.

However, the Supreme Court’s order pertaining to six-month imprisonment for Justice Karnan could be complied with only after his superannuation on June 12.