Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

NA

Advocates
  • Mukul Rohatgi, Attorney General, K.K. Venugopal, Senior Advocate [R. Balasubramanian, Nikhil Nayyar, Ankur Talwar, N. Sai Vinod, Ms Smriti Shah, Divyanshu Rai, M. Yogesh Kanna, Ms Nithya, Ms Mahalakshmi, Partha Sarathi, Elephant G. Rajendran (Intervenor-in-Person in SLP (C) No. 14842 of 2015) and Ms Uttara Babbar, Advocates] for the appearing parties.
Judges
  • Jagdish Singh Khehar, C.J.
  • Dipak Misra
  • Jasti Chelameswar
  • Ranjan Gogoi
  • Madan B. Lokur
  • Pinaki Chandra Ghose
  • Kurian Joseph, JJ.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

NA

Advocates
  • Mukul Rohatgi, Attorney General, K.K. Venugopal, Senior Advocate [R. Balasubramanian, Nikhil Nayyar, Ankur Talwar, N. Sai Vinod, Ms Smriti Shah, Divyanshu Rai, M. Yogesh Kanna, Ms Nithya, Ms Mahalakshmi, Partha Sarathi, Elephant G. Rajendran (Intervenor-in-Person in SLP (C) No. 14842 of 2015) and Ms Uttara Babbar, Advocates] for the appearing parties.
Judges
  • Jagdish Singh Khehar, C.J.
  • Dipak Misra
  • Jasti Chelameswar
  • Ranjan Gogoi
  • Madan B. Lokur
  • Pinaki Chandra Ghose
  • Kurian Joseph, JJ.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Suo Motu Contempt Petition (C) No. 1 of 2017

Factual and Procedural Background

Notice of the contempt petition was duly served on Shri Justice C.S. Karnan, whose personal presence before the Court was required. Despite service, he appeared neither personally nor through counsel. [1]

The Court Registry subsequently received his fax dated 8 March 2017, requesting a meeting with the Chief Justice and other Judges to discuss administrative issues, principally concerning allegations against certain named Judges. [2] The Court did not regard the fax as a response either to the contempt petition or to the notice served upon him. [2]

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether bailable warrants should be issued to secure Shri Justice C.S. Karnan’s presence after his failure to appear despite service of notice. [1][3]
  2. Whether his fax dated 8 March 2017 could be treated as a response to the contempt petition or the notice. [2]

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first noted that notice had been duly served and that Shri Justice C.S. Karnan’s personal attendance was imperative, yet he had failed to appear either personally or through counsel. [1]

It then considered the fax received by the Registry but concluded that a request to discuss administrative issues and allegations against named Judges did not constitute a response to either the contempt petition or the notice. [2]

Given the absence of an appearance or valid response, the Court found no alternative but to issue bailable warrants to secure his presence. [3]

Holding and Implications

BAILABLE WARRANTS ISSUED. The Court directed the issuance of bailable warrants for Rs 10,000, in the nature of a personal bond to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, to ensure Shri Justice C.S. Karnan’s presence on 31 March 2017 at 10:30 a.m. [3]

The Court requested that the Director General of Police, West Bengal, serve the warrants. [4] The contempt petition was posted for hearing on 31 March 2017 at 10:30 a.m.; SLP (C) No. 14842 of 2015 was also directed to be listed at the same time. [5][6][7] The order’s direct effect was procedural, securing attendance and scheduling further proceedings; no new precedent was set.

Show full summary ...

    C.S. Karnan, In Re

    Order

    Suo Motu Contempt Petition (C) No. 1 of 2017

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

    2. It would be pertinent to mention that the Registry of this Court received a fax message from Shri Justice C.S. Karnan dated 8-3-2017 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 seem to reflect the allegations levelled by him against certain named Judges. The above fax message dated 8-3-2017 cannot be considered as a response of Shri Justice C.S. Karnan, either to the contempt petition, or to the notice served upon him.

    3. In view of the above, there is no other alternative but to seek the presence of Shri Justice C.S. Karnan by issuing bailable warrants. Ordered accordingly. Bailable warrants, in the sum of Rs 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand), in the nature of a personal bond, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, be issued, to ensure the presence of Shri Justice C.S. Karnan, in this Court, on 31-3-2017, at 10.30 a.m.

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

    5. Post for hearing on 31-3-2017, at 10.30 a.m.

    SLP (C) No. 14842 of 2015

    6. Post on 31-3-2017, at 10.30 a.m., along with SMC (C) No. 1 of 2017.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    C.S. Karnan, In Re
    (Mar 10, 2017)