Justice Karnan moves SC seeking recall of conviction order

Calcutta High Court judge C S Karnan on Thursday moved the Supreme Court for stay and recall of the May 9 order sentencing him to six months in jail for contempt of court.
 
He also challenged the Constitutional validity of Contempt of Courts Act. “The jurisprudence of contempt, a legacy of the Dark Ages, can have no application to a modern constitutional democracy. In no civil law country it exists,” he claimed.
 
In a writ petition, the elusive judge contended a contempt of court proceeding could not have been instituted against him. Under the constitutional scheme, a High Court is not subordinate to the Supreme Court and is as independent as the Supreme Court itself. Though, subject to a rider that decisions of the High Courts on the judicial side are amenable to appeal to the Supreme Court, Justice Karnan said.
 
“The Petitioner is, therefore, entitled to a declaration that the very notice dated 08/02/2017 issued against him (by 7-judge bench) under the Contempt of Courts Act and all further proceedings in furtherance thereof, culminating in the order dated 9th May 2017, are unconstitutional and void,” he contended.
 
Justice Karnan further stated the May 9 order, passed in his absence, was a nullity in the eyes of law. An order passed without jurisdiction, in violation of the principles of natural justice and in ignorance of express statutory provisions, could be challenged whenever and wherever it is sought to be implemented.
 
Among others, the petitioner sought a declaration that the entire Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and some of its provisions as “unconstitutional and void” in as much as it does not provide for absolute protection against violation of the first principle of natural justice. He also sought a declaration that the orders passed by the apex court would not have binding precedent which violated fundamental rights of the citizens.
 
On Thursday as a counsel mentioned his case, Chief Justice J S Khehar questioned the judge about his whereabouts.
 
On his counsel's submission that he had on Wednesday got the court papers signed by him in Chennai, the bench agreed to consider his plea.
 
Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara brought the petition by Justice Karnan to the notice of five-judge bench when it was about to rise after the ending its hearing on Triple Talaq. The court said this was not the bench, which passed the order.
 
The bench, initially asked him, “What is your authority?” To this, the counsel said, “Yes I have power of attorney.”
 
“If he is not available, how did he sign it,” the bench asked again. On explanation from the counsel, the bench said, “we will consider”.
 
The counsel also submitted that a number of Advocates on Record had refused to sign his petition, making it difficult for the judge to file it. The registry has refused to list it, he said.
 
In his petition, Justice Karnan said, “Even assuming that the Contempt of Courts Act is applicable against a High Court Judge, the petitioner is entitled to be heard before a charge is framed. In the instant case, the petitioner is found guilty without even a charge being framed.”