Connect with us

Justice Karnan had termed 33 judges ‘corrupt’, got six months jail


Justice Karnan had termed 33 judges ‘corrupt’, got six months jail

NEW DELHI: Ten former judges have endorsed a resolution expressing concern over contempt proceedings against activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan, termed it an attempt to stifle right to free speech and demanded withdrawal of the contempt proceedings. Contempt notices won’t make Bhushan lose sleep. He is seasoned by the Supreme Court’s numerous contempt proceedings against him…


frail judges

procure endorsed a resolution expressing challenge over contempt proceedings in opposition to activist attorney Prashant Bhushan, termed it an are attempting to stifle dazzling to free speech and demanded withdrawal of the contempt proceedings.

Contempt notices

won’t procure Bhushan lose sleep. He is seasoned by the Supreme Court’s a colossal option of contempt proceedings in opposition to him over the decades — 2001 dharna by Narmada Bachao Andolan outdoors the SC foremost gate protesting in opposition to a judgment all throughout which slogans questioning the integrity of judges and the fairness of judiciary were freely raised; 2009 media interview calling half of of 16 frail CJIs unfriendly; and now tweeting relating to the alleged role performed by four frail CJIs within the “decimation of democracy”. He furthermore insinuated in opposition to the sizzling CJI for sitting on a stationary bike with out a veil or a helmet while defending the courts in lockdown to shriek procure entry to to justice to commoners.

Factual to free speech has been his argument to thumb his nose at contempt proceedings. The gutsy suggest has in no plan shied faraway from a possibility to




among judges. He seldom place forth evidence within the

public domain

. He chose to belief his intestine emotions and inferences.

When Bhushan changed into once hitting the headlines alongside with his “half of of 16 frail CJIs are unfriendly” insinuation, C S Karnan changed into a lift of Madras HC. Flashing his Dalit card to play sufferer, Karnan tried to pulverise his colleagues within the HC by adopting a scheme corresponding to Bhushan’s. He shot off letters periodically to the HC chief justice, the CJI and now and again to the PM alleging corruption among judges. As lengthy as his immoral accusations and theatrics as a self-proclaimed crusader were confined to the HC, the SC changed into once infrequently perturbed.

Quickly, issues came to a head. He levelled corruption costs no longer good in opposition to Madras HC judges nevertheless furthermore defied the SC. The then CJI and 6 most senior SC judges came on a bench to design up contempt costs in opposition to him and created history by proceeding in opposition to a sitting HC lift. By that time, Karnan changed into once already transferred from Madras HC to Calcutta HC.

The gist of what Karnan instructed the SC resembled Bhushan’s statements. The lift had talked about, “My foremost contention is nice to uproot corruption prevailing in Madras HC, and no longer to atomize the sanctity and decorum of the court docket. I fight for righteousness and for the welfare of the total public of India. I reiterate as continuously, all over the old couple of years, relating to the excessive rate of corruption within the courts I served and serene relief apart from the Supreme Court of India. I won’t pause my efforts and would possibly per chance continue to fight till every wrongdoing is uprooted.”

On Can even 9, 2017, the CJI-led seven-lift bench convicted Karnan for contempt of court docket and sentenced the sitting HC lift to 6 months imprisonment, a first within the history of Indian judiciary.

On the bench were Justices J Chelameswar and Madan B Lokur, who procure now endorsed the resolution expressing solidarity with Bhushan and termed his criticism of judges and the SC as dazzling to free speech to query withdrawal of contempt proceedings.

Why did they no longer undertake the same overview direction of while deciding the contempt costs in opposition to Karnan? Why did they no longer write dissenting opinions differing with the majority which punished Karnan and affords him a tidy chit for exercising free speech in alleging corruption among judges?

Whereas convicting Karnan, the SC had talked about, “Karnan’s public utterances changed into the judicial system into a laughing stock. The native media, unmindful of the hurt it changed into once causing to the judicial institution, merrily rode the Karnan wave. Even the international media had its dig at the Indian judiciary.”

Karnan had levelled corruption costs in opposition to 33 judges, 14 of the SC and 19 of Madras HC. “None of the allegations levelled by Karnan were supported by any fabric,” the predominant judgment, authored by then CJI J S Khehar and agreed to among others by Justice Lokur, talked about.

Justice Chelameswar wrote a separate judgment concurring with the punishment awarded to Karnan. He talked about, “Whether the many allegations made by Karnan are in step with any evidence to construct the real fact of the allegations is a matter which can’t be examined in these proceedings.” And but he went on to give his peep, “The allegations are too imprecise and a few of them even incoherent.”

Justice Chelameswar enunciated two tips. First: “If the contemnor (Karnan) believes and has fabric with him to construct that among the judges of Madras HC are unfriendly or in some other case responsible of some offence identified to regulations, he is required to ability the genuine forum competent to witness those allegations.

2d: “Sadly, the contemnor seems to be to be oblivious of one in all the fundamental tips of regulations that a complainant/informant can’t be a lift in his procure complaint.”

Did Justices Chelameswar and Lokur apply these two tips to scrutinise Bhushan’s statements earlier than annoying withdrawal of contempt proceedings drawn up suo motu by the SC? In the event that they are dazzling on Bhushan, they were surely execrable in writing or acquiescing to those harsh phrases and punishment for Karnan.

Recognising that “scandalising the court docket is serene recognised to be an act of contempt of court docket”, Justice Chelameswar had talked about, “Such behavior and circulate (on the segment of Karnan), if tolerated, would surely ponder a share of weak spot within the system, no such weak spot would possibly per chance be allowed to enter the system.”

Does “weak spot” fertilise within the idea direction of of a lift after his retirement?

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

To Top