C.S. Karnan, In Re

Factual and Procedural Background

The Supreme Court of India initiated Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 1 of 2017 against a sitting judge of the Calcutta High Court, Shri Justice C.S. Karnan. On 8 February 2017, the Court took cognizance of certain letters written by Justice Karnan and, acting on its own motion, issued notice requiring him to appear and show cause why contempt proceedings should not be pursued. In the same order, the Court:

• Directed that a copy of the order and the impugned letters be served on Justice Karnan through the Registrar General of the Calcutta High Court.
• Ordered Justice Karnan to “forthwith refrain” from handling any judicial or administrative work and to return all files in his possession.
• Requested the Attorney General to assist the Court in the matter.

On 13 February 2017 the Court recorded that service had been duly effected and that a signed communication dated 10 February 2017 from Justice Karnan had been received and placed on record. Justice Karnan, however, did not appear, nor did anyone holding a power of attorney represent him. The Court therefore adjourned the matter to 10 March 2017 at 10:30 a.m., continued the interim directions of 8 February 2017, and warned that anyone appearing without proper authorisation could face legal consequences.

Legal Issues Presented

The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.

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’s analysis is largely procedural and centres on ensuring the integrity of contempt proceedings against a sitting High Court judge:

1. Service and Notice: The Court verified that its 8 February 2017 order and the accompanying letters were served on Justice Karnan. His written communication was acknowledged and taken on record.
2. Non-appearance: Noting Justice Karnan’s absence and the lack of authorised representation, the Court deemed it inappropriate to proceed substantively in his absence and therefore adjourned the matter.
3. Continuance of Interim Measures: To prevent any possible interference with the administration of justice, the Court kept in force its earlier direction that Justice Karnan refrain from judicial and administrative functions and return all files.
4. Control of Proceedings: The Court emphasised that contempt proceedings are a matter strictly between the Court and the alleged contemnor; consequently, it rejected an oral request for impleadment by counsel who lacked authorisation and cautioned against future disruptions.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Court issued and maintained notice of contempt to Justice C.S. Karnan, restrained him from performing any judicial or administrative work, and directed his personal appearance on 10 March 2017; the interim order of 8 February 2017 remains in force until further orders.

Implications: The immediate effect is that Justice Karnan is barred from exercising judicial functions pending resolution of the contempt proceedings. The order underscores the Supreme Court’s supervisory and contempt jurisdiction over sitting High Court judges but does not establish a new doctrinal precedent beyond reaffirming existing authority.