opinion polls ban

Justice Karnan case: A bigger problem than his conduct is how the court has dealt with the issue

Under what authority did the seven-judge Bench gag the press?

In The Advocate, a documentary film on one of India’s finest constitutional minds KG Kannabiran, he recalls defending Naxalites in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. “Why are you defending these people who do not respect the Constitution, Mr Kannabiran?” the judge asked him.

“What is on trial here is not their respect for the Constitution,” he replied, “but yours.”

The Supreme Court’s proceedings against Justice CS Karnan evoke a similar reaction.

Not many would contest that Justice Karnan did much to make a cruel and embarrassing joke of the judiciary. He was, of course, not the first person to have alleged corruption and unacceptable conduct among members of the judiciary, but he made a virtue of levelling all manner of accusations against his colleagues and abusing judicial power in ways that would have been unimaginable, except they actually happened.

So, this is not about what we may think of Justice Karnan’s conduct. The problem is with how the Supreme Court dealt with the issue, and how they understood the Constitution.

Seven judges sat together to hear the contempt case against Justice Karnan. The rule is that Benches of two or three judges decide cases; larger benches are the exception. If an earlier decision of the court is under challenge and needs to be revisited, that may require a Bench larger than the one that made the original decision. Or, as Article 145(3) states, a Bench of five judges may sit to hear and decide a case that involves “a substantial question of law”. There was, in fact, such a question in this case: when the only way to remove a judge is through impeachment and there is no move to impeach, what is the court to do?

In Justice Karnan’s case, there were only suo motu contempt proceedings, and, as far as anyone can tell, no constitutional question was set out by the court. How did this justify a seven-judge Bench? That too, remember, when the Chief Justice of India has been refusing to have the Aadhaar-related cases heard – despite flagrant violations of its orders by the government that threaten the rights and liberties of this country’s people – because he cannot spare the judges.

So, what explains this extraordinary treatment meted out to Justice Karnan that relies on the law of contempt to bypass constitutional procedure?

In the case of Justice Soumitra Sen, the court had devised an in-house procedure and recommended to the Parliament to impeach him. Why was that not done this time?

Hurried justice

Justice Karnan may have chosen not to appear before the seven-judge Bench or be represented, but the Supreme Court has a system of appointing amicus who disinterestedly helps it unknot the legal complexities involved in a case. This was the first time they were considering convicting a sitting High Court judge for contempt. How could they not have thought it necessary to take the assistance of an amicus?

The court decided to punish the judge with six months imprisonment, the maximum permitted by the law of contempt. Although everyone is entitled to be heard on the matter of their sentencing, the court did not give Justice Karnan that chance. Maybe he would have done something outrageous if given the opportunity, but that does not absolve the court from following the procedure prescribed by law.

On the same day Justice Karnan was sentenced, Vijay Mallya, who has been thumbing his nose at the court, was held to be in contempt. The two judges hearing his case put him on notice, saying, “Though we have found him guilty of having committed contempt of court, we deem it necessary to give him one more opportunity and also hear him on the proposed punishment.”

Justice Karnan’s conviction and sentence was pronounced in a two-page order, which stated that “detailed order [is] to follow”. So, the judge was sent to prison but he would not know why until a date in the future. The Bench did not state under what authority they ordered that he “shall not perform any…judicial functions”. Why was there such a hurry to punish Justice Karnan? Why could it not wait until the court was ready with the reasons?

Further, where did the judges find the authority to impose a gag order on the press? The public interest in the utterances of a public office-holder is surely a matter for the press to decide. Again, there is no explanation why the press was being ordered into silence, nor a setting out of the principles on which such an order is based.

Seven judges of the Supreme Court have arrived at what is the first and the final determination of a case in which they have institutional interest. There is nowhere to appeal against this order. Justice Karnan is left without recourse. So is the press, which, without being heard, must partake in his punishment.

If so much power rests in one court to punish and gag, and it were to be used by a judge such as Justice Karnan to issue orders that cannot be appealed, consider the implications. After all, Justice Karnan did get appointed as a High Court judge, so who is to say how much higher in the hierarchy he may have risen. (While on this subject, may we ask how his appointment was made in the first place?)

Extraordinary situations demand extraordinary care and respect for the Constitution, and for law and procedure, especially when the liberty and the rights of people are at stake. This case, unfortunately, is a classic illustration of the axiom that “hard cases make bad law”.

Usha Ramanathan is a legal researcher who works on the jurisprudence of law, poverty and rights.

Support our journalism by paying for Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Bringing the glamour back to flying while keeping it affordable

The pleasure of air travel is back, courtesy of an airline in India.

Before dinner, fashionable women would retire to the powder room and suited-up men would indulge in hors d’oeuvres, surrounded by plush upholstery. A gourmet meal would soon follow, served in fine tableware. Flying, back in the day, was like an upscale party 35,000 feet up in the air.

The glamour of flying has been chronicled in Keith Lovegrove’s book titled ‘Airline: Style at 30,000 feet’. In his book, Lovegrove talks about how the mid-50s and 60s were a “fabulously glamorous time to fly in commercial airlines”. Back then, flying was reserved for the privileged and the luxuries played an important role in making travelling by air an exclusive experience.

Fast forward to the present day, where flying has become just another mode of transportation. In Mumbai, every 65 seconds an aircraft lands or takes off at the airport. The condition of today’s air travel is a cumulative result of the growth in the volume of fliers, the accessibility of buying an air ticket and the number of airlines in the industry/market.

Having relegated the romance of flying to the past, air travel today is close to hectic and borderline chaotic thanks to busy airports, packed flights with no leg room and unsatisfactory meals. With the skies dominated by frequent fliers and the experience having turned merely transactional and mundane, is it time to bid goodbye to whatever’s enjoyable in air travel?

With increased resources and better technology, one airline is proving that flying in today’s scenario can be a refreshing, enjoyable and affordable experience at the same time. Vistara offers India’s first and only experience of a three-cabin configuration. At a nominal premium, Vistara’s Premium Economy is also redefining the experience of flying with a host of features such as an exclusive cabin, 20% extra legroom, 4.5-inch recline, dedicated check-in counter and baggage delivery on priority. The best in class inflight dining offers a range of regional dishes, while also incorporating global culinary trends. Other industry-first features include Starbucks coffee on board and special assistance to solo women travellers, including preferred seating.

Vistara’s attempts to reduce the gap between affordability and luxury can also be experienced in the economy class with an above average seat pitch, complimentary selection of food and beverages and a choice of leading newspapers and publications along with an inflight magazine. Hospitality aboard Vistara is, moreover, reminiscent of Singapore Airlines’ famed service with a seal of Tata’s trust, thanks to its cabin crew trained to similarly high standards.

The era of style aboard a ‘flying boat’ seems long gone. However, airlines like Vistara are bringing back the allure of air travel. Continuing their campaign with Deepika Padukone as brand ambassador, the new video delivers a bolder and a more confident version of the same message - making flying feel new again. Watch the new Vistara video below. For your next trip, rekindle the joy of flying and book your tickets here.


This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Vistara and not by the Scroll editorial team.