IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C. S. KARNAN versus .

IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C. S. KARNAN versus .

The Supreme Court has inherent jurisdiction, irrespective of the office held by the contemnor, to punish for contempt when the actions constitute the gravest scandalisation and interference with court proceedings. Justice Karnan's malicious, unsupported, defamatory and public allegations against judges and the judiciary constituted criminal contempt. His conduct during proceedings, including passing purported orders against Supreme Court judges, amounted to contempt, making him liable for punishment.

Parties
Contemnor/respondent: Hon'ble Shri Justice C. S. Karnan
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Suo Motu Contempt Petition (civil) No. 1 of 2017 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Justice Karnan is found guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced to imprisonment for six months.
Legal Topics
Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings Against High Court Judge, Criminal Contempt, Scandalising Court, Jurisdiction to Punish for Contempt, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
Constitutional Law Contempt of Court Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings Against High Court Judge Criminal Contempt Scandalising Court Jurisdiction to Punish for Contempt Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hon'ble Shri Justice C. S. Karnan

Contemnor/respondent

Procedural Posture

Suo Motu Contempt Petition (civil) No. 1 of 2017 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a sitting High Court judge can be proceeded against for contempt by the Supreme Court
  2. 2 Whether the actions of Justice Karnan constituted the grossest and gravest actions of contempt of court
  3. 3 Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings against a High Court judge

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court has inherent jurisdiction, irrespective of the office held by the contemnor, to punish for contempt when the actions constitute the gravest scandalisation and interference with court proceedings. Justice Karnan's malicious, unsupported, defamatory and public allegations against judges and the judiciary constituted criminal contempt. His conduct during proceedings, including passing purported orders against Supreme Court judges, amounted to contempt, making him liable for punishment.

Court Disposition

Justice Karnan is found guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced to imprisonment for six months.

Orders

  • Justice Karnan is punished with imprisonment for six months.
  • Restraint order: No further statements issued by Justice Karnan to be publicised; media not restricted except as expressed.