Contempt by judge can’t be ignored, says A-G

In his opening submission before the Supreme Court on Wednesday that Calcutta High Court judge, Justice C.S. Karnan, should face contempt action, Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi argued that it was time the apex court stopped tolerating the onslaught on the judicial institution by one of its own judges and convey to the public that anyone who humiliated the judiciary, even a judge, would be punished like any other citizen.

The Attorney-General said Justice Karnan, through his letters and conduct dating back to his years as a judge in the Madras High Court, was making a “completely calculated” effort to “destroy” his parent institution. If the Supreme Court was stern with the litigant, it should be sterner with one of its own who tried to harm the institution from within.

Mr. Rohatgi said the Supreme Court, as the apex judiciary, was empowered under Article 129, read with Article 142 (2), of the Constitution to “punish” anyone for contempt, even a High Court judge who had repeatedly made damaging remarks about his superiors and colleagues. The power of the Supreme Court to punish for contempt was not confined to the Contempt of Courts Act.

Article 129, he said, clothed the Supreme Court with the power to punish for contempt of itself. Article 142 (2) provided the court with the power to “make any order” for the “punishment of any contempt of itself.”

A Court of Record

The A-G quoted the 1991 Supreme Court judgment in

Delhi Judicial Service Association versus State of Gujarat, which said the Constitution designed the SC as a Court of Record and “Article 129 thereof recognises the existing inherent power of a Court of Record in its full plenitude, including the power to punish for its own contempt and the contempt of its subordinate.” On January 2, 2017, the apex court reiterated the point in its judgment in the Mid-Day staffers’ contempt case (

Vitusah Oberoi versus Court on its own motion ) when it observed that “one of the recognised attributes of a court of record is the power to punish for its contempt.”

At one point, the Bench refused Mr. Rohatgi’s suggestion to involve the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court in the issue. “When we can do it ourselves, why should we involve the Chief Justice,” asked CJI Khehar.

“Mr. Attorney, we will not involve the Chief Justice of the High Court,” said Justice Gogoi, seconding Chief Justice Khehar.

When Mr. Rohatgi submitted that Justice Karnan wrote several “scurrilous” letters to “almost every authority,” from the Prime Minister to the Union Law Minister to the Chief Justice of India to the Supreme Court Registrar, Chief Justice Khehar advocated caution and said the judge must be given an opportunity to be heard first.

“Are you sure those letters have his signature? Are these signatures his? I have been receiving several of his letters myself. They are signed. I have received so many letters that I know his signature by now. But still... if he denies...” said Chief Justice Khehar.