The Supreme Court separately found two persons guilty of contempt on May 9. One was a sitting High Court judge and the second a fugitive businessman. But while a Bench of Justices A.K. Goel and U.U. Lalit provided industrialist Vijay Mallya an opportunity to appear in person before the court on July 10 and address it on the “proposed punishment” for contempt, adduce evidence of mitigating factors and make “any other submissions”, Justice C.S. Karnan, a judge of the Calcutta High Court, was not afforded this chance by the seven-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar.
The short order recorded in Justice Karnan’s case found him guilty of contempt of the Supreme Court “and of the judiciary of the gravest nature”. It sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment, to be “executed forthwith”.
Should the Supreme Court have given Justice Karnan an opportunity to be heard on his punishment, allowed him to present mitigating factors just like it did in the case of Mr. Mallya?
Opportunity denied
The court in M.R. Parashar v. Dr. Farooq Abdullah case had held that “the position of a contemnor is that of an accused person”. If so, Section 235 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) mandates that a judge shall hear the accused on the question of his punishment. The Supreme Court itself has in the past upheld the significance of Section 235 (2) of the CrPC. In Dagdu v. State of Maharashtra , it was held that “the court is under an obligation to hear the accused on the question of sentence”.
Though the Supreme Court as a court of record may not be bound by the provisions of the CrPC, it may have extended the same opportunity it did for Mr. Mallya to Justice Karnan. Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi has argued that Justice Karnan’s past conduct amounted to contempt on the face of it. Justice Karnan had appeared only once in person before the seven-judge Bench, that too after being issued bailable warrants. He had continued to make disparaging statements against the highest judiciary. However, after finding him guilty of contempt, could the court have heard him on the quantum of sentence?
The May 9 order is not reasoned. The court said a “detailed order” would follow though his sentence was directed to be executed forthwith. Ideally, Justice Karnan may have been given an opportunity to argue on his sentence after receiving the detailed order.
Again, Justice Karnan was not legally represented in the contempt proceedings. That made it pertinent for the court to have fixed a date and afforded him a fair opportunity to be heard. If Justice Karnan chose not to be present to argue his case in person or through a lawyer of his choice on that date, the Bench could have appointed an amicus curiae to address the court on his behalf.
