Holding

Justice Karnan's actions constituted criminal contempt of the Supreme Court, warranting a sentence of six months' imprisonment.

Summary

The Supreme Court suo motu initiated contempt proceedings against Justice C.S. Karnan of the Madras High Court for repeatedly issuing letters and orders that alleged corruption and caste-based discrimination against numerous judges, including Supreme Court judges, and for publicly scandalising the judiciary. The Court examined whether it had jurisdiction to punish a sitting High Court judge, held that the power to punish for contempt is inherent in superior courts and that the proceedings were maintainable despite being suo motu. Justice Karnan's conduct was found to constitute criminal contempt by scandalising the court and interfering with the due course of judicial proceedings. The Court rejected his claim that only impeachment was permissible and that the contempt proceedings violated the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Consequently, Justice Karnan was convicted of contempt and sentenced to six months' imprisonment, and the contempt petition was disposed of.

Issues considered

The Supreme Court's jurisdiction to initiate contempt proceedings against a sitting High Court judge.
Whether Justice Karnan's letters and suo motu orders amount to criminal contempt (scandalising the court and interference with judicial proceedings).
Whether the suo motu nature of the contempt petition affects its maintainability.
The impact of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the contempt proceedings.
Whether impeachment is the exclusive remedy for misconduct of a High Court judge.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. Section 482
Constitution of Indias. Article 124(4), s. Article 129, s. Article 215, s. Article 217(1)(b), s. Article 226
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971s. 2(b), s. 2(c)
Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

Subjects

contempt of courtscandalising the courtjudicial misconductsuo motu jurisdictionhigh court judgeSC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Actimpeachmentjudicial independencefreedom of speechjudicial accountability

Judgment

[2017] 9 S.C.R. 212
,.;. . '
.. t ;

A IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C. S. KARNAN
(Suo-motu.Contempt Petition (Ci~it) No. I of 2017)
MAY09, 2017 1 ANDJULY04,2017 2
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI, DIPAK MISRA,
J. CHELAMESWAR, RANJAN GOGOi,
B
MADAN B. LOKUR, PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND
. KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.)
. Co11tempt 9f(ourts Act, 1971 - ss. 2(b), 2(c) - Contempt of
cow:.t - Suo mot11, COf!tempt proceedings against High Courtjudge
-,Alleged actions.pf criminal, contemp/ by a sitting judge-Justice K
C - He leveled obnoxious allegations against innumerable judges of·
Supreme Court, Chief Justice of High Courts, but mostly against
judges of Madras High Cour~ - Wrote letters, addressed to the media,
addressed corresponde11ce io
the highest constitutional authorities:
and ordered registration. of a case under the provisions of the 1989
D Act'"- Suo motu judicial orders passed by Justice K, even after
issuance of contempt notice - Held: Actions ofJustice 'K' constituted
the grossest and gravest actions ofr:ontempt of Court - He also
committed contempt, in the face OJ the Court- None ofthe allegations
levelled by Justice 'K' were supported by any :11ateria/ - His
allegations were malicious and defamatory, and pointedly by name,
E against many of the concerned Judges - He carried his insinuc:'!ons
to the public at large by letters, and through internet - Some of hi."
letters were intentionally endorsed, amongst others, to the President
of the Tamil Nadu Advocate Association - During the course of
hearing of the i11stant contempt petition, his ridicule of the Supreme
F Court remained unabated - He even stayed orders passed by this
Court and also, restrained the Judges on this Bench, from leaving
the country and convicted them, and sentenced them to 5 years
imprisonment - Thus, liable to be punished, for his unsavoury
actions and behavior with imprisonment for six months - Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Preventio11 of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
G (Per Khehar, CJ/)

1 Judgment by the Bench of Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJ!, Dipak Misra, J Chelameswar,
Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B. Lokur, Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Kurian Joseph, JJ.
2 Judgment by the Bench ofJ. Chelameswar·and Ranjan Gogoi, JJ.

H
212
IN RE; HON'BLE SHRI Jusric.E c. s: KARNAN · ·
••• • < • ' ' • .- •• - ' •• • - , '

<.".:6. . :·•

' c~~temp{(]fcourt .;. Suo 111otli ~oniempt proceedings against .·A
High Court judge·.~ Unsavory allegatio.ns levelled by thejudge ·
towards a large 11un1ber oJ nanied Judges and the judiciary -'-field:
Reis seriot1sly tarnished the _image of those concerned, and the
'judiciary as a whole - Tf111s, initiation suo-hwtuproceedings, for
>contempt of court. (Per Klteliar, CJ/) · ·
. .- ·-,~· B. .,

s.2(c) - Criminal contempt - Impeachment of contemnor .~
·Sitting judge 'K · of the High Court addressing letters containing
allegations of corruption and commission of various offences by
the judge and successive Chief Justices of the 'Madras High Court
- Letters addressed to constitutional functionaries ;_' Judg~ 'K'
passed order commanding various authorities to take legal action c
against the said judges - Allegations made public, undermining the·
credibilily of the judiciary - SuiJ motu contempt proceedings against ·
the judge - Judge :s cas'e that no contempt proceedings. could be .
.initiated against the judge of the High Court; that on(v legal action
against the judge was to remove him from office by impeachment · D · ··
'and that initiation of contempt proceeding against him would
constitute an offence under fhe 1989 Act - Held: The Court has
jurisdiction to initiate contempt proceedings - Prese1it contempt
proceedings initiated suo motu by this Court makes no difference to
its maintainability - Power to punish for contempt oj court has
always been recognized to be inherent in certain superior courts - E
Scandalising the court and inte1ference with the due course of any
judicial proceeding is recognized t<? be an act constituting contempt
of court - Conduct of contemnor during the pendency of the
proceedings in this Court certainly constitutes criminal contempt -
Main proceedings might or might not have ended i'fijinding the · F
guilt of the co11tem11or of scandalising the judiciary - Contemnor
aborted all attempts to judicially resolve the charge <?l commission
of cont~mpt brought against him by the initial notice of the Court-
Rat}ier, he chose to challenge the very jurisdiction of this Court to
enquire into an allegation of contempt against a sitting Judge of
High Court. 7 Post notice conduct and the actions of the contemnor · G
· brought disrepute to the judicial system and has the potential of ·
shaking the. confidence of the average citizen in the system - Not
showing the slightest remorse could be a mitigating factor - Such
conduct. and qct, if tolerated, would certainly reflect an element of
·weakn.ess in the.sys(en~ - Contemnor to be punished for" the.contempt _H _1
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2,017] 9 S.C.R.

A - Constitution of India -Arts. 124(4) and 217(l){b) - Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, i989.
(Per Ch'elameswar, J.)
Judiciary- Constitutional courts - Need to revisit the process
of selection and appointment of judges to the constitutional courts
B - Need to set up appropriate legal regime to deal with situations
where the conduct of a Judge of a constitutional court requires
corrective measures, other than impeachment to be taken. (Per
Chelameswar, J.)
Disposing of the petition, the Court
C HELD: (Per Curium)
1.1 The actions of Justice 'K' constituted the grossest and
gravest actions of contempt of Court. He has also committed
contempt, in the face of the Court. He is therefore, liable to be
punished, for his unsavoury actions and behavior. He should be
D punished for his actions, with imprisonment for sb: months. [Para
36](262~D)

1.2 The text of the letters written by Justice 'K' from time
to time, have been examined as also Jhe suo-motu procedure
adopted by him, whereby he passed orders which were derogatory
E to the administration of justice, before he was issued notice for
contempt, by this Court. The orders passed by Justice 'K' suo-
motu (in the purported exercise.
of the jurisdiction vested0 in him
. under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with S.ection
482 of the Code of Criminal.Procedure), even lifter the issuance
F of th~ contempt notice to him, by this Court have been analysed.
His demeanour was found to have become further aggressive,
after this Court passed orders from time to time, in this case.•
The contents.; of the ·letters addressed by him contained
scandalous material against Judges. of High Courts and the
Supreme Court. This correspondence was addressed to the
G highest constitutional authorities,· in all three wings of
governs.nee-the legislature, the exe~utive and the judiciary. 'His
public utterances, turned the judicial system into a laughing stock.
The local media, unmindful of the dam11ge it was causing to the
judicial institution, merrily rode the 'K' wave. Even the foreign
H media, had its dig at the Indian judiciary. None of his actions can
IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C. S. KARNAN 215

be considered as bona fide, especially in view of the express A
directions issued by this Court requiring him to refrain from
discharging any judicial or administrative work. To restrain his
abuse of suo-motu jurisdiction, a further order had to be passed
by this Court restraining Courts, Tribunals, Commissions and
Authorities from taking cognizance of any order passed by Justice B
'K' (Para 33)(259-C-G]
1.3 Justice 'K' shielded himselffrom actions, by trumpeting
his position, as belonging to an under-privileged caste. By
assuming the said position, he levelled obnoxious allegations
against innumerable Judges of the Supreme Court, Chief Justices
of the High Courts, but mostly against Judges of the Madras C
High Court. None of the allegations levelled were supported by
any material. His allegations were malicious and defamatory, and
pointedly by name, against many of the concerned Judges. He
carried his insinuations to the. public at large, in the first instance,
by endorsing his letters carefully so as to widely Circulate the D
contents of his communications, to the desired circles. Some of
his letters were inte1;1tionally endorsed, amongst others, to the
President of the Tamil Nadu Advocate Association. And later,
through the internet, he placed his point of view, and the entire
material, in the public domain. During the course of hearing of·
the instant contempt petition, his ridicule of the Supreme Court E
remained unabated. In f~t, it was heightened, as riever before.
· In this process, he even stayed orders passed by this Court. By
the orders passed by him, he.restrained the Judges on this Bench,
from leaving the country, he convicted the Judges on this Bench,
and sentenced them to 5 years imprisonment, besides imposing F
individual costs on the convicted Judges. While disposing of the
suo-motu contempt petition, this Court had directed, that no
fur;tlier statements issued by Justice ' K' would be publicized.
/file instant restraint order, however, does not prevent or hinder
, /ilny public debate on the matter, academic or otherwise. The G .
. . ,. media is not restricted in any manner, other than, to the limited
extent expressed. There is hope and expectation, that a
meaningful debate, would lead to a wholesome understanding of
the issue, from all possible perspectives. [Paras 34, 35)(259-H;
260-A; 261-F-H; 262-A-C]
H
.I
. I
216 SUPR,EME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A Per Chelameswar, J.(For himself and Gogoi, .J.)
(Supplementing)
1.1 Faced with an unprecedented situation resulting from
the incessant questionable conduct of the contemnor perhaps
made the Chief Justice of India come to the conclusion that all
B the above-mentioned questions could better be examined by this
court on the judicial side. There is no reason to doubt the
authority/jurisdiction of this Court to initiate the contempt
proceedings. Hypothetically speaking, if somebody were to move
this Court alleging that the activity of Justice K tantamounts to
contempt of court and therefore appropriate action be taken
C against him, this Court is bound to examine the questions. It
may have accepted or rejected the motion. But the authority or
jurisdiction of this Court to examine such a petition, if made
cannot be in any doubt. Therefore, the fact that the present
contempt proceedings are initiated suo motu by this court makes
D no difference to its maintainability. If only the contemnor
appropriately participated in the proceedings, all the above-
mentioned questions and perhaps many more question incidental
to them could have been properly examined and necessary
conclusions could have been recorded. [Para 13J[265-F-G]

E 1.2 Unfortunately, the contemnor never allowed the inquiry
in the right direction. On the other hand, he chose to question
the jurisdiction of this Court to initiate contempt proceedings
against him not on the ground that his activity did not constitute
contempt, but on the ground that no contempt proceedings could
be initiated against a judge of a High Court. According to the
F 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
G that the initiation of contempt proceedings by this Court against
him would constitutl) an offence under the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as the
contemnor belongs to one of those communities falling within
the sweep of the protective umbrella of that enactment. He not

H
IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN 217

only believed so, but also purported to pass certain orders A
ostensibly in exercise of the authority vested in him by virtue of
his appointment as a judge of a High Court to initiate various
actions against members of this Bench. In substance, (i) he
accused the members of this Bench guilty of prejudice against
him, (ii) "he declared" that the initiation of contempt proceedings
B
against him is malafide judicial action apart from constituting an
offence under the 1989 Act. [Para 14)(265-H; 266-A-D]
1.3 The authority to punish for contempt of court has always
been exercised by the judiciary from times immemorial. The
justification for the existence of that is not to afford protection to
individual judges but to inspire confidence in the sanctity and c
efficacy of the judiciary, though they do not and should not flow ·
from the power to punish for contempt. They should rest on more
surer foundations. The foundations are - the trust and confidence
of the people that the judiciary is fearless and impartial. [Para
16][266-F; 267-A-B] D
. 1.4 The power to punish for contempt of court has always
been recognized to be inherent in certain superior courts and in
others it was conferred by statutes. The exercise of such a power
has always been very infrequent and subjected to some discipline.
Members of the Judiciary have always been conscious of the fact E
that the power for contempt should be exercised with meticulous
care and caution and only in absolutely compelling circumstances
warranting its exercise. "The countervailing good, not merely of
free speech· but also of greater faith generated by exposure to
the actinic light of bona fide, even if marginally over-zealous,
criticism cannot be overlooked. Justice is no cloistered virtue." F
[Paras 17, 20] [267-B; 269-C]
1.5 In India scandalising the Court is still recognizl!d to be
an act constituting contempt of court. Though what is the activity
which constitutes scandalisation of the Court is not defined or
very precisely explained in the above-mentioned. cases, G
indivi<luals were held guilty of contempt of court on the ground
that their deeds scandalized the Court. [Para 24)(273-F]
1.6 foterference with the due course of any judicial
proceeding is another facet of criminal contempt. The conduct of
H
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 9 S.C.R.

A the contemnor subsequent to the initiation of suo mot11 contempt
petition No.1 of 2017 in purporting to pass various orders, the
details of which are contained in paragraphs of the judgment of
Chief Justice of India leaves no scope for doubt about the question
whether such conduct would amount to interfering with the judicial
B proceedings pending in the highest court of the land. The main
proceeding might or might not have ended in finding the guilt of
the contemnor of scandalising the judiciary. The contemnor
aborted all attempts to judicially resolve the charge of commission
of contempt brought against him by the initial notice of the Court.
Rather, he chose to engage in a tirade challenging the very
C jurisdiction of this Court to enquire into an allegation of contempt
against a sitting Judge of a High Court. He had addressed
numerous written communications to the Members of the Bench
dealing with the case and had also passed several purported
judicial orders, which, even on a cursory glance, are contemptuous
D in nature and content. The "post notice" conduct and the actions
of the contemnor are to be judged by a minimum standard of
expectation, surely, the Judge before this Court has crossed even
the most liberal standards of expected and permissible expression
of opinion. There is no doubt that such conduct on the part of the
contemnor has brought disrepute to the judicial system and has
E the potential of shaking the confidence of the average citizen in
the system. He has not shown the slightest remorse which could
be a mitigating factor. Such conduct and action, if tolerated, would
certainly reflect an element of weakness in the system; no such
weakness can be allowed to enter the system. The conduct of
the contemnor during the pendency of the proceedings in this
F Court certainly constitutes criminal contempt falling both under
the heads of scandalising the court as well as interference with
the proceedings of this court. The contemnor is therefore liable
to be punished for the contempt of this court. [Para 251[274-A-
G]
G 1. 7 This case has importance extending beyond the
immediate problem. This case highlights two things, (1) the need
to revisit the process of selection and appointment of judges to
the constitutional courts, for that matter any member of the
judiciary at all levels; and (2) the need to set up appropriate legal
H
IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN 219

regime to deal with situations where the conduct of a Judge of a A
constitutional court requires corrective measures - other than
impeachment-to be taken. [Para 26)(274-H; 275-A]
1.8 The conduct of the contemnor ever since his elevation
to the bench has been controversial. Obviously, there is a failure
to make an assessment of the personality of the contemnor ·at B
the time of recommending his nanie for elevation. The purpose
is not to point fingers to individ_uals who were responsible for
recommendation but only to highlight the system's failure of not
providing an appropriate procedure for making such an
assessment. What appropriate mechanism would be suitable for
assessing the personality of the candidate who is being considered C
for appointment to be a member ofa constitutional court is a
matter which is to be identified after an appropriate debate by all
the concerned-the Bar, the Bench, the State and Civil Society.
But the need appears to be unquestionable. [Para 27)(275-B-C]
1.9 This Court is sad to point out that apart from the D
embarrassment that this entire episode has caused to the Indian
Judiciary, there are various other instances (mercifully which are
less known to the public) of conduct of some of the members of
·the judiciary which certainly would cause some embarrassment
to the system. [Para 28)(275-D) E
1.10 The framers ofthe Constitution were people of a great
sense of patriotism and maturity, men and women who maintained
high standards of civic morality. They expected those who are to
be chosen for the higher constitutional offices or to be appointed
to public service would be chosen by assessing their suitability F
(efficiency and integrity) by employing appropriate standards. The
makers of the Constitution were conscious of the fact that
ascendance to higher offices need not necessarily always
. guarantee rectitude and the incumbent of any constitutional office
could resort to behaviour inconsistent with the nature of the office
and ·standards of conduct expected. Thereafter, provisions were G
made in the Constitution for impeachment. of holders of various
constitutional offices starting from the President of India. [Para
29)(275-E-G]

H
220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A 1.11 When it came to the members of the constitutional
courts equally, it was visualised that there can be such occasions.
But the standards and procedure for impeachment of judges are
much more rigorous for reasons obvious. There can be deviations
in the conduct of the holders of the offices of constitutional courts
B which do not strictly call for impeachment of the individual or
such impeachment is not feasible. Surely there must be other
ways of dealing with such cases. The text of the Constitution is
silent in this regard. [Para 30)(275-H; 276-A]
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v.
Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 441 : (1993) 2 Suppl.
c SCR 659; Special Reference No.I of 1998 (1998) 7.
SCC 739: (1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 400; (E.M Sankaran
Namboodripad v. T. Narayanan Nambiar (1970) 2 SCC
325: [1971] l SCR 697; R.L. Kapur v. State of Madras
(1972) 1 SCC 651 : (1972] 3 SCR 417; Pritam Pal v.
D High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur 1993 Suppl.
(1) SCC 529: (1992] 1 SCR 864; Shri Baradakanta
Mishra v. The Registrar of Orissa High Court & Another
(1974) 1 SCC 374 : (1974] 2 SCR 282 - referred to.
Rex v. A/111011 (1765) Wilmot's Notes, 243; Craig v.
Harney, 331 US 367, 376 (1947); He/more v. Smith,
E (1887) 35 Ch D 449, 455; Law Commission's Report of
United Kingdom on "Contempt of Court: Scandalising the
Court (Contempt of Court : Scandalising The Court'',
(2012) The Law Com No.335 [London "(The
Stationery Office)] - referred to.
F Case Law Reference
(1993] 2 Suppl. SCR 659 referred to Para2
(1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 400 referred to Para2
(1971] 1 SCR 697 referred to Para 18
G
(1~72] 3 SCR 417 referred to Para 19
(1992) 1 SCR 864 referred to Para 19
[1974] 2 SCR 282 referred to Para 20

H
IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN 221

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Suo Motu Contempt A
Petition (Civil) No. I of2017.
Maninder Singh, ASG, Rakesh Dwivedi, K. K. Venugopal,
Rupinder Singh Suri, Ajit Kr. Sinha, Sr. Advs., ChanchalKr. Ganguli,
Ms. Narmada, Ms. Madhvi Divan, Nalin Kohli, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi,
Prabhash Bajaj, Nikhil Nayyar, N. Sai Vinod, Ms. Smriti Shah, Divyanshu B
Rai, Gaurav Bhatia, M. Yogesh Kanna, Ms. Nithya, Mrs. Maha Lakshmi,
Partha Sarathi, Ms. Uttara Babbar, Ms. Akanksha Choudhary, Advs.
for the appearing parties.
The Judgments of the Court were delivered by
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI c
I. The task at our hands is unpleasant. ft concerns actions of a
Judge of a High Court: The instant proceedings pertain to alleged actions
·.of criminal contempt, committed by Shri Justice C.S. Kaman. The
initia~ion of the present proceedings suo-motu, is unfortunate. In case
this Court has to take the next step, leading to his conviction and D
sentencing, the Court would. have undoubtedly travelled into virgin
territory. This has never happened. This should never happen. But
then, in the process of administration ofjustice, the individual's identity,
is clearly inconsequential. This Court is tasked to evaluate the merits of
controversies placed before it, based on the facts of the case. It is E
expected to record its conclusioris, without fear or favour, affection or
ill-will.
2. The factual position which emerged in this case, during the
course of hearing, was almost entirely based on the contents of
correspondence addressed by Justice Kaman. They eventually resulted F
in his transfer, from the Madras High Court to the High Court of Calcutta.
The episode of his transfer, was preceded by letters written by a series
of former Chief Justices of the Madras High Court,. to the then Chief
Justice(s) of the Supreme Court of India, seeking his transfer. The
transfer of Shri Justice C.S. Karnan was also sought, through a joint
representation addressed by 20 sitting Judges of the Madras High Court. G
3. During this period, and unconnected with the reasons for seeking ·
-his transfer, the Registrar General of the Madras High Court approached
this Court, highlighting the fact that Shri Justice C.S. Kaman had initiated
suo-motu writ proceedings, wherein, he had stayed administrative orders
H
222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 9 S.C.R.

A passed by the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court. Having heard
the matter, a Bench of this Court, presided over by the then Chief Justice
oflndia. passed the following directions: -
"Permission to file special leave petition is granted.
Issue notice.
B In the meantime,. there shall be stay of interim order. dated
30.4.2015 passed in M.P. no. I of2015 in Suo-motu Writ Petition ·
no. (unnumbered) of2015, until further orders.
We restrain- the learned Judge, who has initiated proceedings
relating to Suo-motu Writ Petition no. (unnumbered) of 2015
pending before the High Court of Judicature at Madras from either
c 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
D Officers till the disposal of the special leave petition.
List after summer vacation."
The petition filed by the Registrar General was later assigned
Special Leave Petition (Civil) no. 14842of2015.
E 4. Undeterred by the intervention of this Court, Shri Justice C.S.
Kaman continued to foul mouth his colleagues at the High Court of
Maqras, by addressing communications to the highest executive and
judicial authorities. We shall refer to only those available on the record
of the case. We may, for reason of brevity, leave out the past, and
F commence with his letter dated 2l.8.2015, addressed to the Chief Justice
of the Madras High Court. A perusal of the aforesaid communication,
reveals his dissatisfaction in not having been assigned an appropriate
roster, when hewas deputed to the Madurai Bench of the Madras High
Court. Even when he returned to the Prificipal Bench, after a period of
three months, he was unhappy with the roster assigned to him. In the
G instant letter, he also expressed his displeasure, when matters originally
assigned to him, were taken away from his Board, by the Chief Justice
of the Madras High Court, and assigned to other Benches. Besides the
above personal grievances, he made direct and pointed allegations (in
his above letter dated 21.8.2015) against Shri Justice" ... V.D ....", for
H
IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN ' 223
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

having been appointed as a Judge of the High Court, even though A
. (according to Justice Kaman) he did not possess the requisite academic
qualifications for the position. Indeed, it was alleged, t~at his academic
certificates were bogus. It was also alleged (in the above letter dated
21.8.2015) that the Judges of the Division Bench- Dr. Justice" ... T.V.
... " and Shri Justice " ... C.T.S .... " had not exercised their judicial
8
functions independently, but had been passing orders, at the asking of
the then Chief Justice of the Madras High Court. He also accused the
ChiefJustice of the High Court, for having approached this Court, against
the suo-motu orders passed by him. The initiative at the hands of the
ChiefJustice of the Madras High Court (to approach the Supreme Court)
was described by him (in the above communication dated 21.8.2015) as C
most insulting. Justice Kaman in the above letter, dated 21.8.20 I5,
· accused the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, for not having
included him in any of the committees constituted for discharging
administrative responsibilities of the High Court. For this reason, he
accused the Chief Justice, for segregating him on account of his belonging
0
to an under-privileged caste. He also pointed out, that he had made a
complaint in this behalf to the Chairman of the National Commission for
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Justice Kaman also accused
the then ·chi~f Justice of the Madras High Court (in the above
communication) for having created a communal divide in the High Court.
His contention in this behalf was, that he favoured the advanced E
communities, while making recommendations for appointment ofHigli ·
Court Judges, and at the same time ignored the under privileged castes
and tribes, as well as, the minorities. While concluding the letter dated
21.8.2015, Shri Justice C.S. Kaman expressed, thatthe Chief Justice of
the Madras High Court, had committed offences under the provisions of F
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Pre.vention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989.
5. Another letter ofShri Justic.e C.S. Kaman, dated 52.2016,
was addressed to the Home Secretary 9fTamil Nadu. The instant letter
was written to extend protection to a lawyer - Peter Ramesh Kumar,
who had made serious allegations against a few Judges, especially against G
Shri Justice " ... V.R.S.M ..... ". The co-mmunication is interesting,
because the Home Secretary had been directel.to treat his letter as a
"suo-motujudicial order". In the above letter, JusticeKarnan had directed
the Registry of the Madras High Court, to assign the suo-motu writ
H
224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A petition (-the letter dated 5.2.2016), a number. The direction contained
in the letter dated 5.2.2016, required the Home Secretary, to arrange
adequate police protection. for the safety of the afore-stated Advocate.
6. Shri Justice C.S. Kaman wrote another letter to the then Chief
Justice of the Madras High Court, on I 0.2.2016. In the instant
B communication he pointed out, that the High Court had arranged a function
forthe inauguration of Regional Centres of the Tamil Nadu State Judicial
Academy, at Coimbatore and Madurai (- on 21.2.2016). He accused
the Chief Justice, of allowing only upper caste Judges, to participate in
the function. It was pointed out, that no representation from scheduled
castes or scheduled tribes, was included in the celebration. It was alleged,
C that even though his name was initially included, it was replaced by a
junior upper caste Judge. He highlighted the fact, that he had been
repeatedly agitating on this issue, even on earlier occasions. In the instant
communication dated I0.2.2016, Justice Kaman again declared the Chief
Justice of the Madras High Court, an offender under the Scheduled
D Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
7. In the above Special Leave Petition (Civil) no. 14842 of2015
filed by the Registrar General, High Court of Madras (see paragraph 3
above). I.A. no. 6 of2016 was filed on 12.2.2016, by the Registrar
General of the Madras High Court, for urgent directions. Jn the said
E application, reference was first made to the order dated 30.4.20 I5 passed
by Justice Kaman, which was stayed by this Court on 11.5.20 I5 (order
extracted in paragraph 3 above). Thereafter, Justice Kaman addressed
a letter dated 2 l.8.20 I5 to the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court
(details narrated above). Shri Justice C.S. Kaman then addressed a
letter dated 10.2.2016, again allegedly in exercise of suo-motu judicial
F power (details expressed above). It was also sought to be highlighted in
I.A. no. 6of2016, that on I0.2.2016, Justice Kaman, had raised objections
in connection with a function org::nized by the Madras High Court,
alongwith the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy to inaugurate Regional
Centres at Coimbatore and Madurai, scheduled for 21.2.2016. Justice
G Kaman had alleged therein, that he had been removed as a member of
the Board of Governors of the Judicial Academy. It was sought to be
explained (in I.A. no. 6 of 2016), that the allegations levelled by Shri
Justice C.S. Kaman were misconceived, because he had never been
nominated as a member of the Board of Governors of the Judicial
Academy, since its inception in 200 I. The contents of I.A. no. 6 of
H
IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN 225
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

2016, also make a reference to another alleged suo-motu judicial order, A
dated 5.8.2016, passed by Shri Justice C.S. Kaman, directing the Home
Secretary to the State ofTamil Nadu to provide police protection to one
Shri Peter Ramesh Kumar on the ground, that he was facing threats to
his life, from a few Judges of the Madras High Court, wherein he
expressly named Shri Justice" ... V.R ..... "(details narrated above). B
The background for passing the above order was sought to be explained
in paragraph 10 of I.A. no. 6of2016, as under:-
"The above order has been passed in the following background,
enumerated below:
(a) On 16.9;2015, few advocates along with W. Peter Ramesh c
Kumar' barged into Court Hall no. 2 of the Madurai Bench.
and stopped willing advocates from addressing the Hon'ble
Bench to enforce a boycott call. Moreover, the concerned
Advocate threatened the Hon'ble Bench to take anv action
against him. As a result, the Division Bench was forced to
initiate contempt proceedings for his misdemeanors. D
(b) The above named Advocate was previously hauled up for
contempt on several occasions: Three years ago, the High
Court directed the State Bar Council to initiate disciplinary
proceedings for misconduct. Earlier. a Full Bench of the High
Court had found him guilty of contempt and put him on probation E
for a period of one (l) year. Nonetheless, the concerned
Advocate continued to indulge in dismptive practices even during
the probation and the matter is pending consideration before
the Full Bench.
(c)On 30.11.2015. the Suo-motu Cont. Petition (MD) no. 1449 F
· of ·2015, registered pursuant to the Order dated 16.9.2015
passed by the Madurai Bench, came up for hearing for the
fifst time before Mr. Justice" ... R.S .... "and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice " ... M. V.V.... " The above named Advocate. appearing
in person, prayed for time to file a response. However. the G
alleged Contemnor made offensive. and casteist allegations
against the Presiding Judge of the Division Bench that initiated
the proceedings in his Counter Affidavit. The alleged
Contemnor also made false and scandalous imputations against
certain women lawyers in connection with the learned Judge.
H

••
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A He further circulated the contents of the affidavit including the
offensive remarks through WhatsApp and Facebook.
(d) On 28.1.2016, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court
transferred the Suo-motu Cont. Petition (MD) no. 1449of2015
before a specially constituted Bench at the Principal Seat of
B 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
c 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.
D
(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
E these allegations. Moreover, all four associations of lawyers
at Madurai passed resolutions to condemn the scurrilous
campaign conducted by the alleged Contemnor and urged the
High Court and the State Bar Council to take stringent action
against him."
F Last of all it was pointed out, that in terms of the roster issued by
the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, with effect from 1.2.2016,
Justice Kaman was assigned to hi::ar criminal revision - admission and
final hearing, and specially ordered matters. It was pointed out, that
Justice Kaman was passing orders in complete disregard to the roster
G assigned to him. It was also asserted, that Justice Kaman had been
repeatedly interfering or reopening issues, even in currently pending
matters before other Benches of the High Court. It was highlighted,
that he had even stayed judicial proceedings pending before the High
Court. Jn I.A. no. 6of2016, the Registrar General of the Madras High
Court, sought appropriate directions through the following prayers:-
H
IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN 227
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

"PRAYER A
In the premises, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to:
(a) stay the operation of Suo-motu Judicial Orders dated
5/8.2.20 J6 (Annexure A-6) and 10.2.2016 (Annexure A-4) passed
by Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.S. Kaman of the High Court ofMadras; B
(b) direct Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.S. Kaman not to exercise any
suo-motu powers of the High Court or to direct the Registrar, Madras
High Court, to register such suo-motu ordt;rs as being pursuant to suo-
motu writ petitions;
c
(c) restrain the Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.S. Kaman from hearing or
issuing directions or in any manner dealing or connected with the
proceedings relating to Suo-motu Judicial Order dated 5/8.2.2016 and
10.2.2016 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras;
(d) pass such other.and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may 0
deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the matter."
During the course of hearing in the above I.A. no. 6 of 2016
(wherein one ofus-Jagdish Singh Khehar, and Mrs. R. Banumathi, JJ.,
were members of the Bench), the Court was informed, that Shri Justice
C.S. Kaman had already received the proposal for his transfer from the E
High Court of Madras. Having taken into consideration, the totality of
the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court passed the following
order on 15.2.2016:-
"Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel having entered
appearance on behalf of the petitioner has filed the affidavit of F
Mr. " ... B.H. ... ", Registrar-cum-Private Secretary to Hon'ble
the Chief Justice, High Court of Madras, dated 14.02.2016. A
.perusal of the same reveals that Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.S. Kaman
has received the proposal of his transfer from the High Court of
Madras dated 12.02.2016.
Having taken note of the situation. in our view it would be G
appropriate. that Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.S. Kaman should hear
and dispose of only such matters as are speciallv assigned to him
by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court. It will be
open to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court, not to assign
H
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 9 S.C.R.

A any further administrative/judicial work to him. This would imply,
that no other orders shall be passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.S.
Kaman, suo-motu or otherwise, in any matter not specially assigned
to him.
The operation ofall or any administrative/judicial order(s} passed
B by Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.S. Kaman, after the issuance of the
proposal of his transfer from the Madras High Court dated
12.02.2016.(unless specially assigned to him, by Hon 'ble the Chief
Justice), shall remain stayed till further orders.
A copy of the instant order shall be furnished to Hon'ble Mr.
c Justice C.S. Kaman, by the Registrar General of the High Court.
It shall be open to the Hon'ble Judge to enter appearance before
this Court, in case he is so advised (in respect of the instant/
pending matter)."
8. The next relevant letter, was issued by Justice Kaman, on
D 26.10.2016. It was addressed to the City Police Commissioner, requiring
him to register criminal cases. In the instant letter, Justice Kaman claimed
to be a victim of social and caste discrimination. He also alleged, that he
had been subjected to agony, on account of ragging and demeaning actions,
of Judges of the Madras High Court, spearheaded by Shri Justice" ...
F.M.I.K. .... ". These allegations ofragging were classified by him, into
E four categories, as under:-
''The social boycott by the ragging Judges could be classified into
four categories as under:
I. The below mentioned Judges directly resorted to insulting me
F in public premises, namely Mr. Justice " ... l.K .... ", Mr. Justice
" ... N.N .... ",Mr. Justice" ... R.S ....",who is now posted to
Jammu & Kashmir, Mr. Justice" ... K.N.B .... ",Mr. Justice" ...
R.S.M..... " now posted as Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court, Mr. Justice" ... A.A ....", Mrs. Justice" ... A.J .... ", Mr.
Justice" ... N.K .... ",Mr. Justice" ... S.M.K.... "and Mr. Justice
G " ... M.S. ·.··" The below mentioned three Judges'' ... M.YE .
... ",now retired Judge of the Supreme Court oflndia, Mr. Justice
" ... R.K.A .... ",now a serving Judge of the Supreme Court and
Mr. Justice" ... s~K.K .... ",who also extended their cooperation
with the ragging Judges of the Madras High Court by operating
H
IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN 229
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJ!]

administrative power and insulted me at the public institution/ A
Judiciary, to that effect I have levelled complaints against them
under the Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribes Atrocities Act which
are pending enquiry at the respective high dignitary offices. 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. B
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. c
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 D
me."
Based on the above insinuations, Justice Kaman made the
following request to the City Commissioner of Police, Chennai:-
"Now l request you to register a criminal case against the first
category of ragging Justices under the Ragging Act including social E
boycott. The other erring Judges will be included after
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 F
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." G
9. Reference also needs to be made to a letter dated 18.1.2017,
which was addressed by Justice Kaman, to the State Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court, Chennai, wherein he highlighted the fact, that he
had passed a suo-motujudicial order, against Shri Justice" ... N.D .... "
H
230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A (now retired), asserting that Shri Justice" ... N.D .... " had produced
bogus educational qualification certificat"s, 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
8
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
C 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 criminal case had also been registered
against the said Advocate, for having committed forgery. In his letter,
Justice Kaman had requested the Public Prosecutor to collect the
D 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.
I0. Vide another letter dated 23.1.20 J7, Justice Kaman highlighted
corruption in the High Court, inter alia at the hands of the following
E 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.... ";
F 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 .... ";
I0. Mr. Justice·~ ... A.K .... ";
G
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 .... ";
H
IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN 231
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

16. Mr. Justice" ... M.M.S, ... "; A
17. Mr. Justice" ... N.K. ... ";
18. Mr. Justice'~··· N.N .... ";
19. Mr. Justice" ... T.R.... ";
20. Mr. Justice " ... S....".
The instant letterdated23.l.2017 was endorsed by Justice Kaman B
to Shri " ... H .. ;.", Private Secretary-cum-Registrar attached with the
Chief 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. Kaman emerges from a C
communication dated 3. l .2017, addressed by him to the Prime Minister
oflndia. 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:-
D
"I request you to please peruse the following:-
I. Mr. Justice" ... T.S.T....".the Hon'ble ChiefJustice oflndia
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,
E
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 hereditaiy
candidates. This kind of selective choice is not appropriate in a .
democratic country and unbecoming of the judiciary since it
evidently points to discrimination. F
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 G
he is the top most authority of the entire judiciruy. 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
H
232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 9 S.C.R.

A 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. This
erratic behavior by a top dignitary is baffling the minds of vast
sections of our Indian populace numbering crores.
B
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
c were Chief Guests presiding over the function. Therefore. I
initiated preliminary legal action against them by invoking the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Atrocitv Act. This bonafide
allegation will be proved on the basis of documentary evidence
already available on file of the Madras High Court Registry besides
D 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
E 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
F 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 oflndia to nullify the perusal and
consideration of any tentative plans for a suitable position after
G 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
H
IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN 233
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

(S) for conniving with the CJI and also keep him waiting for any A
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 B
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 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 C
support by the Apex Court.
8. A~ 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 D
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 E
with his Law Intern namely Ms." ... D.... ",who is a victim and
now restrained to move with societv 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, F
Mr. Justice " ... S.K.K ... .'s" administration has fallen to pieces
and irreparable deterioration of ethical st~ndards.
I 0. 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 G
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. H
234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A 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
B
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
c 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 influence for his personal gain; this also being a
proved case known to the entire judiciary. advocates besides the
D general public.
Hence, I request you, Hon 'ble Prime Minister oflndia 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
E 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
F year 2017, the issue of transfer of Shri Justice C.S. Kaman 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
G 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 Kaman. It is essential to
detail some of these communications, in order to understand the content
H and nature of the allegations. ·
IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN 235
[JAGDISH SINGH KH_EHAR, CJI]

13. In the above context, reference may first be made to three A
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
invited Shri Justice C.S. Kaman, to the weekly Wednesday-night dinner,
hosted by Judges at the Madurai Bench. It was alleged, that even though B
the appointed time was 8.00 p.in., 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 waiti'ng for
him (Justice Kaman), and they would commence their dinner, only upon
his arrival. It was alleged, that he (Justice Kaman) reached the venue
immediately thereafter. It was alleged in the above letter, that on reaching C
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 Kaman, 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 Kaman D
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 oflndia, the Union Law Minister and the Chief Justice
oflndia.
14. The second letter also dated 27.1.2017, wafi,addressed to Shri E
Justice " ... A.A ...." (retired). In the instant letter, he accused Justice
" ... A.A. ... " and Mrs. Justice" ... A.J .... " fortheir role along with the
other Judges, in socially boycotting him (Justice Kaman), and for ragging
him. It was pointed out, that he had lodged a complaint against the said
Judges, before the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and F
Scheduled Tribes. He also affirmed, that copies of the said complaint,
had been sent to various dignitaries, including the ChiefJustice oflndia.
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 G
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 Kaman alleged, that the above mentioned Judges were chargeable
H
236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 9 S.C.R.

A under Section 306 of the Indian Pei;ial 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 Kaman also accused the above two Judges, for having conspired
with six other named sitting Judges of the Madras High Court, for having
8
instructed the Registry of the High Court, not to extend assistance to
Justice Kaman, in conducting religious ceremonies, after the demise of
his father. ·
15. The third letter also dated 27.1.2017, was addressed by Justice
Kaman, to the Registrar General of the Madras High Court. It was
C alleged therein, that he (Justice Kaman) had already lodged a complaint
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 ofthe Acting Chief Justice. Through the third communication
D dated 27.1.2017, Justice Kaman had also enquired about the stage of
investigation, of the case.
16. In February, 2017, Justice Kaman assumed charge at the
Calcutta High Court. From Calcutta, Justice Kaman addressed an
undated letter to the Prime Minister of India, with copies to the Chief
E Minister ofTamil Nadu, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court oflndia,
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:-

F "His Excellency. the President oflndia 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
G actually happening like soliciting of pretty women. heavy liquor
consumption. acquisition of mass wealth, forgety 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."
H
IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN 237
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJ!]

17. Having viewed the unsavory allegations levelled by Justice A
Kaman 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 blemished and tarnished the image of those concerned in
.particular, and the judiciary as a whole. It was accordingly decided to
initiate sucrmotu proceedings, for contempt of Court. A Bench comprising B
of the seven senior most Judges of the Supreme Court was constituted,
to examine whether or not Shri Justice C.S. Kaman 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:- C
"I. Issue notice to Shri Justice C.S. Kaman, 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. Kaman, during the course of the day, through the D
Registrar General of the Calcutta High Court.
3. Shri Justice C.S. Kaman, 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 E
the Registrar General of the High Court immediately.
4. Shri Justice C.S. Kaman 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 F
in the matter."
18. Shri Justice C.S. Kaman in response to the order dated 8.2.2017
(extracted above) addressed a letter to the Registrar General of this
Court on I0.2.2017. He expressed the following view, on the initiation
of suo-motu contempt proceedings against him:- G
"In the above mentioned suo-motu petition it is not maintainable
against a sitting Judge of the High Court, further the Suo-motu
Contempt order passed against me. since .I have sent
representations to the various Govt. Authorities regarding high
H

' ..
238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 9 S.C.R.

A irregularities and illegalities occurring at the Judicial Courts. I am
also a responsible Judge fo 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
B 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
c 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 staten;ient 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 .... "
D 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
E 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. 1 even gave a recent allegation that there were 20
F Corrupt Judges at the Madras High·Court and that the Hon'ble
Justice" ... K.K .... " is no. I, 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 forJustice Mr. " ... S.K.K ... .'s"
G elevation; Please don't let it be tlie 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 ~he House of Parliament. On 15.2.2016. I
H
IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI Jl}STICE C.S. KARNAN 239
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJ!] ·

also included in my proclamation that Hon'ble Justice Mr. "... A
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 Commissioner of Police. Chennai. to register a criminal case
against the both mentioned Hon'ble Judges. Therefore, the present
Chief Justice oflndia is obviously bearing the same prejudice as B
in the past by passing the same order.
·Therefore my deep request is to hear the Suo-motu Contempt
after retirement of Chief Justice ofindia. 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 C
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 mandatofy;as such the Suo- D
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 E
. the Judiciary at the Madras High Court. The said Order also
violating Article 2 I9 of the Constitution since there is distinct ill-
will in the order. Hence, I request the Hon 'ble Judges to hearthe
matter after the retirement of the present Chief Justice oflildia
but if considered urgent then refer the matter tO"Parliament. This
is my humble and urgent submission. Further the Hon'ble Supreme · F
Court had not granted the stipulated time which is highly irregular."
A perusal of the above letter of Shri Justice C.S. Kaman very
clearly demonstrates, that he had made allegations against a large number
of Judges, which he continued to maintain, were c·orrect.,_ He also
acknowledged, that he had addressed the media, after. this Coi1rt had G
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, thatthe then Chief Justice of the High
Court, was at the top of the list, amongst corrupt Judges. He also
affirmed, having issued a direction to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, H
240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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 Kaman,
for not having entered appearance as directed (despite due service),
C 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. Kaman has been duly served. in terms of
the motion Bench order dated 08.02.2017. A communication dated
D 10.02.2017 addressed by Sri Justice C.S. Kaman 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. Kaman is taken
on record.
E 2. Despite due notice, Shri Justice C.S. Kaman has not appeared.
No one has been authorised by Sri Justice C.S. Kaman 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
F with the matter as of now.
3. Post for hearing on 10.03.2017 at 10.30 a.m. Sri Justice C.S.
Kaman is directed to be wc~ent 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.
G 4. lt is necessary to notice, that certain counsel, appeared on their
own. We enquired from them, whether they were duly authorised
by Sri Justi.ce C.S. Kaman, and were in possession of a power of
attorney to represent him. They had no such authorization. These
learned counsel submitted, thatthey proposed to file impleadment
H
IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN 241
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]
' . . .
application on behalf of certain organiz~tion. The oral prayer for A
impleaqment is rejected. ·
S. 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 B
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.'.' C
20. On 13.2.2017, Justice Kaman 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 D .
·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 E
co-operate with the Contempt proceedings; please circulate to all
the concerned Hon'ble Judges and oblige."
Justice Karrian also addressed a separate letter dated 13.2.2017,
purporting to be his explan~tion, to the show cause notice issued to him.
Relevant extract of the s~me is reproduced below:- F
" ... The following purports to be my conde_nsed explanation: -
(I) I am fighting for righteousness and for the welfare of the
· general public oflndia.
. .ti":
(2) I reiterate as always done. during the last few years about the
G .
high rate of Corruption at the Courts I served and still. se;ving.
besides the Supreme Court oflndia. 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,
•- H
242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A Christians, Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe and of the most
backward Communities, to the High Courts and Supreme Cou11
even though the total- strength of Judges is around 1100, an
insignificant few including myself are holding the position of Justice
of the peace.
B (4) Therefore, I request the Hon'ble Supreme Court Collegiuin 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
quartet is biased and no one is benefitted. The balance of power
if unfortunately centred with the upper caste J~dges resulting in
c the worst cormpt scenario ever witnessed since India attained
Independence in 1947. I, as a serving Judge of the Judiciary
cannottolerate the degeneration of the Judiciary by corrupt Judges
and in this regard I have placed on record the corruption of various
Judges overthe years.
D (S) Mr. Justice" ... N.K .... ",Judge of the Madras High Co111i
kicked me with his shoe and slyly removed my name tag pinned
on my seat at a public function and l immediately reported this
matter to the Supreme Court with intimation to the Chairman of
, the Schedule Caste aitd Schedule Tribes Commission. This incident
E 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
4 years. Hence, I am seeking a comprehensive enquiry to all my
allegations.

F (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 w!iy cannot the case be examined by more
G professional investigators? This incident coming from the precincts
ofth'e Madras High Court is now known to the general public. Is
the generai: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
H
IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE c,s. KAJ~.NAN . 243 -·
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJIJ ..

and not be considered- "A spoil sport". All my efforts.are most A
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. Kaman· reveals, his
unequivocal and steadfast assertion, about the high rate of corruption in
Courts, including Judges of the Supreme Court oflndia. His pointed and B
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. Kaman,
he chose not to enter appearance even on 10.3.2017. To procure the
presence of Shri Justice C.S. Kaman, this Court passed the following c.
order on 10.3.2017:- ,·
"l. Notice of this petition has been duly served. Despiteservice.
- wherein the personal presence ofShri Justice C.S.Karnan. in this
Court, was ·imperative. he has neither entered appearance in
person. nor through counsel. . . D
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
Hon'ble Judges of this Court, so as to discuss certain administrative
issues expressed therein, which primarily seein to reflect the E
allegations levelled by him against certain named Judges. The
above fax message, dated 08.03.2017, cannot be considered as a
response ofShri 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 butto seek
F
the presence of Shri Justice C.S.Karnan by issuing bailable
warrants. Ordered accordingly. Bailable warrants. in the sum of
Rs. l 0,000/- (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 l 0.30 A.M. G
4. We would appreciate ifthe 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 I 0.30 A.M."
H
244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A 22. On the very day the third judicial order dated 10.3.2017 was
passed, Shri Justice C.S. Kaman 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 I0.3.2017. Relevant part of the above order, is
extracted below:-
B
"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 oflndia. But subverting all cannons ofjustice the
accused persons due to pre-conceived prejudicial notion have
c 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
D can be initiated against a sitting Judge of the higher 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.
E
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,
F 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.
G
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:-

H
IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

"l. Mr. Justice ". :. S.K.K .... "; A
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 .... ";
B
7. Mr. Justice" ... T.S.T.... ";
8. Mr. Justice" ... M.Y.l.... ";
9. Mr. Justice " ... LK. ... ";
l 0. Mr. Justice " ... A.K. ... ";
11. Mr. Justice" ... E.D.R .... ";
12. Mr. Justice" ... K.N.B .... "; c
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. ... ";
D
18. Mr. Justice" ... N.N .... ";
19. Mr. Justice" ... T.R. ... ";
20. Mr. Justice" ... S. :..".
21. Mr. " .... H.... ", Private Secretary-cum-Registrar;··
22. Mr." ... P'.K. .. :",Registrar; &
23. Mr.~· ... S.P....",Advocate & President, E
Tamil Nadu Advocates Association.
xxx xxX: .

In the result. I direct the Central Bureau oflnvestigation to register.
investigate and file a report before the appropriate Court of law F
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 G
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' Enquizy Act and consequently I reguest His Excellency
the President oflndia to recall the bailab.le warrant illegally issued
H
246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A by the Supreme Courton 10.3.2017 and lift the non-work allotment
ban of port-folio allocation and file a report within 7 fseven) days
before this Hon'ble Court.
Dated and signed by me this day I01h of March, 2017 ."
The above suo-motu order was endorsed to this Court. It was
B also endorsed to the Rajya Sabha Secretariat (Legislative Section),
whereupon, the Raj ya Sabha Secretariat (Legislative Section) addressed
the following Jetter to this Court:-
"RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT
(LEGISLATIVE SECTION)
C 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.
Kaman, Judge, Calcutta High Court regarding.
A copy of the communication on the above mentioned
D subject, containing, an order dated the IOlh March, 20 l 7 passed
by Shri Justice C.S. Kaman, Judge, High Court of Calcutta in
Suo-motu W.P. (Criminal) no. l of2017 is sent herewith. It has
been mentioned in the order that seven Judges of the Supreme
Court, including the Chief Justice ot'India (names mentioned in
the order), alorig with the Attorney General of India in suo-motu
E
contempt petition (C) no. l of 20 l 7 dated 8.2.20 l 7 have called
for his appearance on 10.3.2017 citing various reasons and has
inter-alia directed that the Secretary-General ofRajya Sabha may
place the entire facts of the case before the Hon'ble Chairman,
Rajya Sabha for appropriate enquiry under the Judges (Inquiry)
F Act, 1968. Shri Justice C.S. Kaman has posted the matter to
3 l .3 .20 l 7 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
G 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 motfon
before him to consider taking the action.desired by Justice Kaman.
Further, as per practice and convention, Hon' ble Chairman, Rajya
Sabha or Secretary-General, Rajya Sabha do not respond to the
H
JN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN 247
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

notices/orders received from the courts and all such A
communications are forwarded to the Ministry of Law and Justice
for apprising the concerned court about the correct constitutional/
legal procedure.
3. The Ministry ofLaw and Justice is therefore requested to kindly
look into the above matter and inform Shri Justice C.S. Kaman, B
Judge, High Court of Calcutta aboutthe 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 Kaman, and the letter
endorsed to the Supreme Court by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat c
(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· D
communication, from the Registrar General of the High Court of Calcutta.
Justice Karnan had addressed the above communication (- dated
14.3.2017) to the Registrar General of the High Court of Calcutta. The
same is extracted below:-
"To Dated the l4'h March, 2017
E
The Registrar General,
High Court,
Calcutta
Respected Sir,
On 9.3.2017 one Mr. Mathew, Advocate. his Cell no. F
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:-
I. The Chief Justice of India, Mr. Justifce "·:-. J.S:K .... ".and .G
Justice Mr. " .. .-D.M. , .. ", on the basis o a su1c1de riote written
by former Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh; which I totally
deny and simultaneously directed my personal security officerto ·
send out the said Advocate from my residence. Accordingly he·
was sent out.· The copy of the writ petition and the order prepared
H
248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A by the above mentioned Advocate Mr. Mathew is enclosed
·herewith. A detailed enquii:y may be conducted on this issue and
have the report submitted to the Hon'ble Judges as mentioned
above for negessai:y investigation and appropriate action."
The aforesaid communication was endorsed by the Registrar
B 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 Kaman claims, he was asked to sign.
24. Whilst the contempt proceedings were going on, Justice Kaman
c 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-motujudicial order (purportedly, invoking
Article 226 of the Constitution oflndia, read with Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure), dated 15.3.2017. The text of the above
D order is reproduced below:-
"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
Suo-motu Judicial Order passed after invoking Article 226 of the
Constitution oflndia read with Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code.
E Present Justice C.S. Kaman
To Dt. 15.03.2017
The Director,
Central Bureau oflnvestigation,
New Delhi
F
I have made a complaint before the Hon' ble Prime Minister
oflndia, against 20 Hon'ble Judges consisting of Supreme Cou11
and High Court Judges, namely:-
"I. Mr. Justice" ... S.K.K .... ";
2. Mr. Justice" ... S.M.K.... ";
G 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.... ";
H 8. Mr. Justice" ... M.Y.E .... ";
.. . ·i

. ; ..

iN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C:S. KARNAN 249
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

9. · Mr. Justice " ... I.K.... ";
10. Mr. Justice " ... A.K .... ";
I I. Mr. Justice" ... E.D.R .... ";
12. Mr. Justice" ... K.N.B .... ";
13. Mr. Justice": .. A.A. ... ";
14. Mrs. Justice " ... AJ .... ";
,- . B
·.IS. . " ... v·o
Mr. Just ice . .... "·,
16. Mr. Justic~ " ... M,M.S .... ";
17. ._Mr. Justice" ... N.K. ... ";
18. Mr. Justice" ... N.N .... ";
19. Mr. Justice " ... T.R....";
20. Mr. Justice " ... S.... ". c
The said complaint is still pending enquiry on the tile of the
Hon'ble Prime Minister of India. In the said complaint) have
i;nentioned l 0 inferences in order to probe the dishonesty-Of Judges.
Under these circumstances the Hon'ble Supreme Court had
issued Suo-motu Contempt Order on 8.2.2017 against me, and D
also restraining my judicial and administrative work, the said order
is not sustainable under law since no jurisdiction, no cause of action
arise fr~m the Supreme CO\lrt and no provision. As such the
Hon'ble Judges have misused their judicial and administrative
power. Further the Hon'ble 7 ~udges who·after breaking the E
Indian Constitutional Law by constituting an unconstitutional Bench,
hence they are the contemnors since they ~ave 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 · F
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 G
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 oflndia against whomsoever
he may address, then that complaint has to be disposed of on H
•' . "
250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20 I7] 9 S.C.R.

A 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
B
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 I 9(g)(i) which are prime
Articles of the Constitution.
Therefore, on my complaint on 23.1.2017 which has to be
c 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
D Registry. Accordingly ordered.
l. Justice" ... J.S.K .... " - Chief Justice oflndia
2. Justice" ... D.M .... "
3. Justice " ... J.C .... "
4. Justice" ... R.G. ..."
E 5. Justice " ... M.B.L ...."
6. Justice" ... P.C.G...."
7. Justice " ... K.J .... "
My Lords, on my impugned complaint dated 23.1.20 I7
which has been levelled against 20 Judges under corruption
charges. Now the said complaint has to be decided on merits by
F the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi.
Therefore your Suo-motu Contempt Petition no. I of2017 and its
interim orders including bailable warrant becomes infructuous and
a
null and void. Hence I make deep request to cancel your above
mentioned Constitutional Bench and restore my normal judicial
G and administrative work and oblige.

Yours
Sci/-
(Justice C.S. Kaman)"
H
IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN 251
[JAGDISH SINGH.KHEHAR, CJI]

... It is not necessary for us to summarize the contents of the letter A
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 Kaman against his colleague Judges.
25 On.16.3.2017, Justice Kaman addressed the following
commimication to the members of this Bench:- B
. "To Date: 16.03.2017 ·
I.' Justice" ... J.S.K.... " - ChiefJustice oflndia
2. Justice" ... D.M .... "
3. Justice" ... J.C .. ..
4. Justice " ... R.G.... ·~ . C
5. iustl<;e " ... 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- D
Motu contempt order against me in Suo-Motu Contempt Petition
rio. I 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 Dal it Judge (myself). .
The factual position of the case is. that I have levelled a . E
complaint dated 23.1.2017, against 20 Judges for dishonesty before
the Hon'ble Prime Minister oflndia 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 F
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 ~ides of the case and pass order in accordance with law. In
the instant case the Hon'ble Judges have defended the case on G
behalf of the 20 erring Judges. Therefore, the Hon'ble seven
Judges and other 20 Judges as mentioned are the Opposite parties/
respondents and myselfa complainant. As such the Hon'ble seven
Judges passed a Suo-Motu.order which is illegal and improper.
H
252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 9 S.C.R.

A Hence I request you to cancel the unconstitutio11al 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
B 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 of7 days from the date of receipt
c 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/-
D
(Justice C.S~ Kaman)"

The letter extracted above, also needs no further elaboration, and
as such, we do not desire to substantiate the accusations levelled by
Justice Kaman therein, any further.
E
26. The bailable warrant issued in this case, to procure the personal
presence ofShri Justice C.S. Kaman, was served on him on 17.3.2017.
Having signed the same in token of being duly served, Shri Justice C.S.
Kaman recorded the following note thereon, in his own handwriting:-
"On illy complaint dated 23.1.2017, the Supreme Court has issued
F
a Suo-Motu Contempt Order. On the same complaint, I directed
the CBI to conduct a detailed enquiry an.d 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
G 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 the.irrespective posts
in the interest of justice and national welfare. Therefore the
Hon'ble Judges have no locus standi to proceed the Contempt
H
IN RE, HOWBLE SHRI JUSTICE e,,'8, KARNAN 253
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

Proceedings against me any further. Since now the complaint A
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 &JG"
B
Shri Justice C.S. Kaman 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 c
I. Justice", .. J.S.K .... " - Chief Justice oflildia
2. Justice" ... D.M .... " ·
3. Justice" ... J.C .... "
4. Justice " ... R.G. ... "
· 5. Justice " ... M.B.L .... "
D
6. Justice " ... P.C.G. ..."
7. Justice" ... K.J. ;.. "

My Lords, your bailable order dated I0.3.2017 in the Suo-motu
Contempt Proceedings today, top Police Officers from the Calcutta E
·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 Dal it
Judge. Hence, I request you to stop your further harassments in F
order to uphold the dignity and decorum of our Courts. , .
Yours,
, Sd/-.
(J11stice C.S. Karnan)'J,.-
G
27. On 3 l.J.2017 (the next date of hearing, after lQ.3.2017), Shri
Justice C.S. Kaman 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:-
H.
254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A "To
Date: 25.03.2017
l. Justice" ... J.S.K .... " - Chief Justice of India
2: Justice" ... D.M .... "
3. Justice" ... J.C .... "
B 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
c 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
D committed contempt of Court.
3. I will follow Your Lordship's advice and guidelines in future in
orde~ to maintain the judicial system and its integrity.

4.1 will be retiring on "i 1.6.2017, therefore, I make a deep request
E 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/-
F (Justice C.S. Kaman)"
A perusal of the above communication, reveals an unmistakable
acknowledgement by Justice Kaman, 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
G made in the open Court, he reiterated the allegations against his former
colleague Judges. Since the oral submissions made by Shri Justice C.S.
Kaman 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:-
H
JN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.S, KARNAN 255
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI] .

"I. Shri Justice C.S. Kaman has entered appearance in Cpurt in A
· 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
letterdated25.03.2017, which Shri Justice C.S. Kaman personally B
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. Kaman 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 C
filed by way ofan affidavit. Shri Justice C.S. Kaman is directed·
to appear in Court in person on the next date of hearing.
2. The repeated requests of Shri Justice C.S. Kaman, that he
should be permitted to discharge judicial and administrative duties,
are declined. D
3. Post for hearing on 01.05.2017, at I0.30 AM."
It is pertinent to record, that after the above order had been
dictated, Justice Kaman while moving away commented, that he may
be sent to jail, but he would not appear before this Court again.
.E
28. True to his statement. Shri Justice C.S. Kaman 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 F
examination, was ordered on l.5.2017. The_ above order dated 1.5.2017
-the fifth judicial order of the proceedings, is repr~duced below:-
" I. While issuing notice to Shri Justice C.S. Kaman on 8.2.2017,
this Court had directed, that Justice Kaman would forthwith refrain
from handling any judicial or administrative work, as may ~;ave G
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.
H
256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A 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) ag:ainst the members of th is Bench, as also. another
Hon'ble Judge of this Court. Those orders have been received in
B
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. Kaman,
we hereby refrain all Courts. Tribunals. Commissions or
Authorities, from taking cognizance of any orders passed by Shri
c Justice C.S. Kaman. 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. Kaman. prima facie suggest,
that he may not be in a fit medical condition. to defend himself. in
D 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 Shri Justice C.S.
Karnan, and submit a report to this Court whether or not Shri
E Justice C.S. Kaman 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.
F 4. The Medical Board shall submit its report to this Court, on or
before 8.5.2017.
5. Shri Justice C.S. Kaman may, ifhe 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,
G it shall be presumed. that he has nothing to say in the matter.
6. Post on 9.5.2017, at I0.30 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,
H
IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN 257
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

that they may be allowed to intervene and assist this Court in the A
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-motujudicial orders B
passed by Shri Justice C.S. Kaman, 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. Kaman,
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. c
29. In our considered view, it is not necessary for us to highlight
al) the submissions made by Shri Justice c:s. Kaman to the media, as
.well as, the orders passed by him. All these orders were placed i.n public
~omain (by Justice Kaman), well before the same were delivered to this
• Court. His interviews with the media, and the orders passed by him D
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 ofAtrocities)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 E
members of the Bench to travel abroad; and by yet another order dated
7:5.2017, he sentenced all the 7 m1;1mbers 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. "
F
30. The matter was finally taken up for hearing on 9.5.2017.
During the course ofheariqg, Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel
representing the State of West Bengal informed the Bench, tha(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 G
examine Justice Kaman. He informed this Court, that the Board of
Doctors had approached Shri Justice C.S. Kaman, at his residence (along ·
with police personnel). He also informed the Bench, that Justice Kaman
had met the Board of Doctors, and had spoken to them. Justice Kaman,
the Bench was informed, told the Board of Doctors, that he was in a fit H
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A 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 Kaman,
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
8
significant enough to report. We would, therefore, accept the assertion
of Justice Kaman, 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
C hearing, when he appeared in person on 31.3.2017. There is no other
alternative with us. We had granted liberty to Justice Kaman 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,
D 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. Kaman had
consistently committed gross contempt of this Court. In view of the
E factual position which had emerged, after this Court issued the show
caus,e notice to Shri Justice C.S. Kaman (- on 8.2.2017), it was the
pointed contention of the learned Attorney General, that Shri Justice
C.S. Kaman 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
F nor any justification. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor
General, reiterated the above position. Shri Rupinder Singh Suri, the
President of the Supreme Court !J:... 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. Kaman was guilty
G 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 aJinal decision in the
matter, be deferred till such time as Shri Justice C.S. Kaman demits his

H
IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN' 259
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

office as Judge of the High Court. It was submitted, that Shri Justice A
C.S. Kaman, would retire on attaining the age of superannuation on
l 1.6.2017. It was urged, that the image of the institution would be
tarnished, in case Shri Justice C.S. Kaman was punished for contempt
of Court, whilst he is holding the high constitutional office.
33. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the factual B
position noticed hereinabove, as also, the submissions advanced by learned
counsel, who assisted us during the course of hearing. We have carefully
examined the text of the letters written.by ShriJustice C.S. Kaman,
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, c
by this Court. We have also carefully analysed the orders passed by
Shri Justice C.S. Kaman suo-motu (in the purported exercise of the
jurisdiction vested in him under Article 226 of the Constitution oflndia,
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 D
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 authoritil::s, in all three wings of governance~ the
legislature, the executive and the judiciary. His public utterances, turned E
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, especiaily in view of
the express directions issued by this Court on 8.2.2017, requiring him to F
refrain from discharging any judicial or administrative work. To restrain
his abuse of suo-motu jurisdiction, a further order had to be passed by
this Court on 1.5.2017, restraining Courts, Tribunals, Commissions and
Authorities from taking cognizance of any order passed by Justice
Kaman.
G
34. We are of the considered view, that Justice Kaman shielded ·
himself from actions, by trumpeting his position, as belonging to an under- c·
privileged caste. By assuming the above position, he levelled obnoxious .
allegations against innumerable Judges of the Supreme Court, Chief
. ':
·: :
____ .....
. . - . -- . --· --·-··-··--····

260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A 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 Kaman, include the following:-
]. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar - Chief Justice oflndia,
2. Justice P. Sathasivam - former Chief Justice of India,
B
3. Justice T.S. Thakur - former Chief Justice of India,
4. Justice Dipak Misra - Judge, Supreme Court oflndia,
5. Justice J. Chelameswar-Judge, Supreme Court oflndia,
6. Justice Ranjan Gogoi - Judge, Supreme Court oflndia,
c
7. Justice Madan B. Lokur- Judge, Supreme Court oflndia,
8. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose - Judge, Supreme Court
oflndia,
9. Justice Kurian Joseph - Judge, Supreme Court oflndia,
D
IO. Justice R.K. Agrawal - Judge, Supreme Court oflndia,
11. Justice R. Banumathi - Judge, Supreme Court oflndia,
12. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul - Judge, Supreme Court of
India,
E
13. Justice F.M.I. Kalifulla - former Judge, Supreme Court
oflndia,
14. Justice M.Y. Eqbal - former Judge, Supreme Court of
India, .
F 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
G 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,
'
H
...
INRE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN . 261
[JAGDISH SINGHKHEHAR, CJI]

21. Justice C.T. Selvam - Judge, High Court of Madras, . A
22. .Justice N. Kirubakaran - iudge, High Court of Madras,
. 23. JUstice M.M, Sundresh ~Judge,, High Court ofM~dras,
24. · Justice T; Raja - Judge, High Court of Madras;
25~ · Justice K. Swamidurai- form~r Judge, High Court ~f .B
Madras, . · · · . · ·

26. ~ustice Chitra Venkataraman -former Judge,.HighCourt
. of Madras, , ·.
' '

27. Justice K:N. Bash~:.: former Judge, High Court of Madras, c
28. Justice V. Dhanapalan - former Judg~, 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,· D

31. · Justice ~.S. Ramanathan" former Judge, High ~ourt of .·
Madras; . . . . . .

32. Justice Aruna Jagdeesan - former Judge, High.Court of
· J\.:1'adras, . . · ~· -. . ..
E
33. Justice G.M. Akbar Ali.-former Judge, High Court of
Madras.
35. None of the allegations levelled by Justice Kaman were
supported by any material. His allegations were malicious and
defamatory, and pointedly by name, against many of the concerned F
Judges. He carried his insinuations to the public at large, in the first
instance, by endorsing his letters carefully so as to widely 9irculate the
contents of his communications, to the desired circles. · Some·· of his
letters were intentionally endorsed, amongst others, to the i>reiiident of
the Tamil Nadu Advocate Association. And later; through the .intern~t,
G
he placedf!is 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 Sup~eme 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
H
262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 9 S.C.R.

A Bench, from leaving the country. By another order he convicted the
Judges on this Bench, besides another Judge of this Cow1:, and sentenced
them to 5. years impri~;onment, 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 fw·ther statements issued by Shri Justice C.S.
B
Kaman would be publicized. Thc 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.
meaningful debate, would lead to a wholesome understanding of the
C issue, from all p'ossible perspectives.
36. From the narration expressed in the preceding paragraphs,
we have..no hesitation in concluding, that the actions ofShri Justice C.S.
Kaman constituted the grossest and gravest actions of contempt of Court.
He has also committed contempt, in the face of the Court. He is therefore,
D 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.
Note: The emphasis supplied in all the quotations in the instant
judgment, are ours.
E CHELAMESWAR, J. 1. This case raises many important
questions. The factual background of the case is given in detail in the
judgment ofHon'ble the Chief Justice oflndia. Therefore, we propose
to mention only the bare minimum.
2. The contemnor 's name was recommended for elevation by the
F Collegium of the Madras High Court i.e. the then Chief Justice and two
senior most judges. After the completion of the ritual of the necessary
appointment process contemplated under the Constitution as i~terpreted
by this Court in the Second and Third Judges Cases', he was appointed
on 30'h March 2009.
G 3. Whether the conduct of the contcmnor subsequent to his
elevation is consistent with the conventionally accepted norms of decorum
expected of a member of the j udiciary-morc particularly of a constitutional
court must remain a puzzle. The contemnor has been in the habit of
'Supreme CourtAdvocatcs-on-RccordAssociation v. Union oflndia (1993) 4 SCC 441
and Special Reference No. l of 1998 ( 1998) 7 SCC 739
H
IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN 263
[CHELAMESWAR, J.]

addressing letters containing allegations of corruption and commission A
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 ofHon'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 B
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 facts relevant
for recording the conviction and sentence by order of this Court dated
9'" May, 2017 are limited. ·
4. The contemn or addressed two letters2 to the Prime Minister of
India. Copies of the same are marked to various other constitutional C
functionaries including the Chief Justice oflndia. These letters contained
allegations ( l) that the selection process ofthe 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 D
Court and (4) that the conduct of some of the judges of the Madras High
Court which (according to the contemnor) constitute offences uriderthe
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 E
Court referred to in the judgment of the Chief Justice oflndia.
S. 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 F
those alleged misdeeds of the judges of the Madras High Court referrecl'
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 G
known to law, he is required to approach the appropriate fomm competent
to examine those allegations. What is the appropriate forum and
procedure which the contemnor is required to follow for setting the law
2 Letter No.I-dated 03.01.2017 & Letter No.II-undated, but sometimes in February

2011 H
264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A 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
B and appropriate further legal 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
c 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
o 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
E "passed orders purporting to be in exercise of his judicial functions"
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
F ."proved misbehavior" or "incapacity" within the meaning ofArticle 124(4)
read with Article 217( I)(b) of the Constitution of India warranting the
impeachment of the contemnor is a matter which requires a very critical
examiriation. lfthe contemnor is unable to prove the various allegations
made against judges of the Madras High Court, what legal consequences
G would follow from such failure also requires an examination. Prob~ably,
the contemnor would be amenable for action in accordance with law for
defamation, both civil and criminal apart from any other legal
consequences.
I0. But the frequency and gravity with which the contemnor made
H such allegations against his colleagues and the manner in which such
IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN 265
[CHELAMESWAR, J.]

allegations are made public, certainly would have some adverse impact A
on the reputation of the individual judges against whom allegations are
made, the image of the Madras High 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 ofthe repeated episodes B
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 C
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. D
13. Faced with an unprecedented situation resulting from the
incessant questionable conduct of the contemnor perhaps made the Chief
Justice of India come to the conclusion that all 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 E
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 F
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 conclusio11s could G
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 him· not on the
H
266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (20 J7] 9 S.C.R.

A 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 ofa High Court is to remove him from office in accordance
with the procedure of impeachment prescribed under the Constitution -
B 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 contemn or belongs to one of those
communities falling within the sweep of the protective umbrella of that
C 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
D Bench guilty of prejudice against him, (ii) "he declared" thatthe initiation
of contempt proceedings against him is malafide judicial action apart
from constituting an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, 1989.

15. Before we record the reasons which prompted us to be a
E signatory to the order dated 91h 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 immemoriaP. The justification for
F
'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:
G "And whenever men's allegiance to the law is so fundamentally shaken, it is the
most fatal and most dangerous obstmction 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 ... . .. . .. ... ·

H
JN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN 267
[CHELAMESWAR, J.]
. -~~-,~-~·

the existence ofthat is not to afford p~dtection to individual judges4 but A
to inspire confidence in the sanctity and'efficacy ofthejudiciary5, 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.
B
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: ,, C
"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 D
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
oflndia, it is a part of the powers of the Supreme Court and the
· High Courts .... " ·
E
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
ofMadras, (1972) I 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 ofCourts Act, 1952. The Court held as follows:
F
"Para 5. . .. Article 21 S 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 21 S

4 "The law of contempt is not made for the protection of judges who may be sensitive
to the winds of public opinion. Judges arc supposed to be men of fortitude, able to G
thrive in a hardy climate." [Douglas, J., Craig v. Harney, 331 US 367, 376 {1947))
'"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. - He/more 'v. Smith,
( 1887) 35 Ch D 449, 455]
H
268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 9 S.C.R.

A declares the power of the High Court already existing in it by
reason ofits being a court ofrecord, 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, l 952 ... In any case, so far as contempt of the High Court
itself is concerned, as distinguished from that ofa court subordinate
B
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. Higll Court ofMadl1ya Prades/1,
Jabalpur, 1993 Supp {I) SCC 529, another Bench of this Court opined
C 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
D 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
E Entry 77 ofList I and Entry 14 of List III in exercise of which the
Parliament has enacted the Act of 1971, the 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
F 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
G 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
H
IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN 269
[CHELAMESWAR, J.]

the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or A
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 B
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 for contempt should be
exercised with meticulous care and caution and only in absolutely
compelling circumstances warranting its exercise. "The countervailing c
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-iealous,
criticism cannot be overlooked. Justice is no cloistered virtue."8

6
D
E.M. Sankaran Namboodripad v. T. Naraymian Nambiar, ( 1970) 2 SCC 325,
para6
7
Shri Barmlakanta Mishra v. Tl1e Registrar ofOriss11 High Coun & Anotlter, ( 1974)
I SCC 374 (Hon. Iyer, J. - separate but concurring opinion)
"Para 65. Before stating the principles of la~ bearing on the facets of contempt of
court raised in this case we would like to underscore the need to draw the lines clear E
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 F
upon civil liberties and so the special jurisdiction and jurisprudence bearing on
contempt power must b): 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. G
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 som; wholesome principles which serve as unspoken
guidelines in this branch ciflaw.... "
• Ibid, Para 82 at page 409
H
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A In a judgment rendered almost a decade back, one of us (Gogoi,
J.) sitting in the Gauhati High Court held9:
"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
B 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
c 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
D 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 wrnng to the public as distinguished from
the harm caused to the individual Judge. Public confidence in the
E 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
F 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
G
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."

H ' 2008( I) GLT 800 - In re: Lalit Kali ta & Others
IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN 271
[CHELAMESWAR, J.]

21. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 recognises two forms of A
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 Section 2(b)1° 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."
B
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- c
. .

(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 . o
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to
· obstrnct, the administration of justice in any other manner;"
. It can be seen from the above that ariy act which scandalises or
tends to scandalise the authority of the Court and interference or
obstruction of the administration ofjustice in any manner are two forms E
of contumacious action. · L ~' •

22. It must be mentioned here that Great Britain from which we
have adopted the present legal system11 abolished the offence of criminal

1
• Section 2 (b) "civil contempt" means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, F
direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful brea~h of an undertaking
given to a court.
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·· G
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

H
272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017) 9 S.C.R.

A contempt on the ground of scandalising the court pursuant to the
recommendation of the Law Commission dated l 2'h December, 2012 1 ~
After discussing the various suggestions received and their
implications, the Law Commission opined at para 91: .
"91. One question is whether these offences are capable of
B covering publicatio!ls 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
c 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
D ( 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-
E
"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
F undertake any elaborate analysis of the American jurisprudence for the
present purpose. Borrowing a passage from the Law Commission's
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, l0986 and the Communications Act, 2003 which can sufficiently
G 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 oftences 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."
H
.IN RE, HON'BLE SHR.I JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN 273
[CHELAMESWAR, J.]

Report of United Kingdom on "Contempt of Court: Scandalising the A
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 B
Commission summarized the position as follows:
"United States Jaw 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 C
evils that Congress has a right to prevent" [( 1919) 249 US 47, 51
to 52]. Other common Jaw 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 ofa balancing exercise. [Justice D
R Sackville, "How Fragile Are the courts? Freedom of Speech
and Criticism of the Judiciary" (2005)]. ln 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 ofthe scandalising offence, appeared
to adopt an approach near to that of the United States. New E
Zealand declined to follow Kopyto [( 1993) NZHC 423 : [ 1994) I
NZLR 48], thus remaining in the Anglo-Australian camp."
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 F
precisely explained in the above-mentioned cases, individuals were held
guilty of contempt of court on the ground that their deeds scandalized
the Court.

13
Law Commission's Report of United Kingdom on "ContemptofCourt: Scandalising G
the Court (Contempt of Court: Scandalising The Court", (2012) The Law Com NoJ35
[London "(The Stationery Oftice)]:
14 (1974) I SCC 374. Shri Baradakanta Mishra v. The Registrar ofOrissaHigh Court

& Another;
(2002) 3 SCC 343 • In re: Arundhati Roy
H
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A 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. I of2017
in purporting to pass various orders, the details of which are contained in
paragraph!; 22 to 26 of judgment of Chief Justice of India leaves no
B 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
commission of contempt brought against him by the initial notice of the
C 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 address~d numerous
written communications to the Members of the Bench dealing with the
case and had also passed several purported judicial orders, which, even
D 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
E 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.
F 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.
G
26. This case, in our opinion, has importance extending beyond
the immediate problem. This case highlights two things, (I) 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
H
IN RE, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN 275
[CHELAMESWAR, J.]

situations where the conduct ofa Judge ofa constitutional court requires A
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 8
to individuals. who were responsible for recommendation but only to ·
highlight the system's failure of not providing an appropriate procedure
for making such an assessment. What appr@riate 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 c
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 poillt out that apart from the embarrassment
that this entire episode has caused to the Indian Judiciary, there are D
various other instances (mercifully which are less known to the publi.c)
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 E
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 F
need not necessarily always guarantee rectitude and the incumbent of
any constitutional office could resort to behaviour inconsistent with the
nature of the office and standards .of conduct expected. Thereafter,
provisions were made in the Constitution for impeachment of holders of
various constitutional offices starting from the President oflndia.
G
30. When it came to the members of the constitutional courts
equally, it was visualised tha( 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
H
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 9 S.C.R.

A 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.
B

Nidhi J.lin
Contempt Petition disposed of