The Karnan saga: Melodrama of contempt, audacity within Indian judiciary

Assertions of normalcy followed by 'sentencing' of 7-judge SC bench makes this one-of-a-kind tale

The refusal of S Karnan, the controversial high court (HC) judge in Kolkata, to allow a Supreme Court-ordered psychiatric examination of himself, and embarking upon Monday’s decision of ‘sentencing’ a seven-judge bench headed by the country's chief justice, has added a further dimension to an unprecedented story.
 
Karnan’s allegations started with a letter addressed to the Prime Minister in January. He claimed high-level corruption among several judges of the higher judiciary. This met with much criticism and drew the ire of the apex court. Which instituted contempt proceedings against the judge, who has gained notoriety over the years.
 

The SC has seen Karnan’s actions as a severe affront to the dignity of the judicial system. And, has been in a back-and-forth tussle with the judge, whose actions have shocked the judiciary and outsiders alike.  According to Vikramjit Sen, former SC judge, his actions  represent a severe breakdown in the hierarchy. “One cannot undermine the whole system. If the judiciary is not respected, the whole system breaks down,” he says. Karnan has defied several orders directing his presence before the SC. It led to issuance of a first-of-its-kind bailable arrest warrant against a sitting HC judge . This and his knee-jerk reactions to steps taken against him by the apex court had led many, including the chief justice, to question his mental condition. The judge’s action in also ordering a Central Bureau of Investigation probe against the seven-member SC bench on grounds of caste-based atrocities, and summoning these judges to appear before him in Kolkata, have added to this supposition.

 

 This culminated in the May 1 order of the SC that the authorities not obey any of Karnan’s directions made after February 8. And, directed a medical examination, with police assistance, to determine his mental condition.
 
Karnan’s response directing a medical examination of the seven judges in retaliation was a source of amusement for some. However, his refusal to undergo the examination has added to the complexity of the situation. More so as his refusal to be examined finds support in the newly enacted Mental Healthcare Act. Section 2 of this law states that ‘informed consent’ to any intervention means consent given without any undue influence or force. Section 4 says every person will be deemed to have the capacity to make his own decisions with regard to his mental health care if the person understands the information that is relevant to take a decision on treatment, admission or personal assistance.

 
Article 142 of the Constitution empowers the SC to make "any" orders as are necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter before it. Though the provision allows the apex court to make such orders for the investigation or punishment of contempt of itself, the power is subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament. Without any express mention by the SC as to which provision of law the order directing the examination was passed, experts are divided on whether Article 142 would automatically apply in such a case without any previous precedent to support it.

 
To add to the complication, Section 3 of the Mental Healthcare Act also mentions that the mental illness of a person shall not be determined on the basis of any reason not directly relevant to the mental health of a person or non-conformity with moral, social, cultural, work or political values.
 
Whatever the technicalities, Karnan’s refusal to allow the examination and instead proceed to ‘sentence’ the seven-judge SC bench is sure to add a twist to the tale when the matter is to heard again by the apex court on Tuesday.
 
While not supporting Karnan’s actions in any manner, ex-judge R S Sodhi of the Delhi HC has highlighted the importance of not losing focus on the gravity of any allegations of corruption within the judiciary. “If at all there is any truth to these (Karnan’s) allegations, they cannot be brushed under the carpet,” he says.  What is certain is that this set of episodes has added significant fuel to the concerns on transparency in the appointment of judges to the higher courts.

 
And, poses serious questions on the lack of a formal system, short of impeachment, to remedy such cases of indiscipline among the hallowed interpreters of the nation’s laws.