Supreme Court sends high court judge Karnan to jail for contempt

The Supreme Court on Tuesday held Calcutta High Court judge S C Karnan guilty of ‘Contempt of Court’ and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment. The court also ordered that the high court judge be arrested immediately.

The unprecedented order comes a day after the high court judge had sentenced the Chief Justice of India and seven other Supreme Court judges to five years in prison and fines ranging from ₹ 1 to 5 lakhs.

Earlier the high court judge had appeared before the Supreme Court on March 31 following a bailable warrant of arrest issued against him by the apex court. He had demanded that the court should restore his judicial and administrative powers.

In a 45-minute hearing then Justice Karnan had accused the Supreme Court of robbing his mental and physical balance as well as dignity. By sending the police after him, the apex court, he had alleged, had treated him worse than a terrorist and lowered his esteem in the eyes of the society.

The Supreme Court gave him an opportunity to file an affidavit explaining his conduct or to offer an unconditional apology, none of which was acceptable to the high court judge.

The seven-judge bench headed by CJI J S Khehar was even more irked after the high court judge summoned them before him and ordered Air Control Authority to ensure that they do not travel abroad.

The war of attrition acquired another dimension when the Supreme Court ordered the West Bengal Director General of Police to ensure medical examination of the judge by a team of psychiatrists from the Pavlov Hospital in Kolkata.

The high court judge had on Monday turned away the team, declaring that he was perfectly normal.

The Supreme Court today found Justice Karnan guilty of contempt of court as well as contempt of judicial process and ordered his imprisonment.

Earlier the Bench headed by the CJI and including Justices Dipak Mishra, Chelameshwar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Lokur, Pinaki Ghose and Kurian Joseph had refused to show any leniency on the ground that Justice Karnan could be suffering from a mental disorder. Allowing such defence, the court felt, would set a precedent and enable others also to use this as an alibi.