Case Study: In Re: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.S.

Karnan
a) Facts:
The case arose as a suo motu contempt petition against Justice C.S. Karnan, a
sitting judge of the Calcutta High Court. Justice Karnan issued numerous public
statements and orders against fellow judges, accusing them of corruption and
caste-based discrimination. These actions prompted the Supreme Court to initiate
contempt proceedings in February 2017. He was directed to refrain from
performing judicial and administrative work and return all files to the High Court
registrar. Despite these directives, Justice Karnan continued to pass orders,
including issuing arrest warrants against Supreme Court judges and directing the
CBI to investigate them.
The Court expressed concerns about his mental fitness and ordered a medical
examination. Justice Karnan, however, refused to cooperate, alleging harassment
and discrimination. His refusal to appear before the Court and escalating defiance
led the bench to convict him of contempt, resulting in unprecedented disciplinary
action against a sitting High Court judge.

b) Statutory Provisions:
1. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Governs both civil and criminal contempt,
penalizing actions that obstruct justice or lower the judiciary's authority.
2. Article 129 of the Indian Constitution: Empowers the Supreme Court to
punish for contempt to uphold its dignity and authority.
3. Article 142 of the Indian Constitution: Grants the Supreme Court the
power to pass any order necessary to ensure complete justice.
4. Judicial Accountability: Implicitly derived from constitutional provisions,
emphasizing the judiciary’s role in maintaining its integrity and public
confidence.
 5. Code of Conduct for Judges: While not statutory, this emphasizes ethical
and professional standards to preserve the judiciary’s dignity and
impartiality.

1. c) Issues: Did Justice Karnan’s actions amount to criminal contempt of

court?
2. Can the Supreme Court initiate contempt proceedings against a sitting High
Court judge without undermining judicial independence?
3. Was Justice Karnan mentally fit to defend himself in the proceedings?
4. How should judicial misconduct be addressed to preserve public trust in the
judiciary?

d) Arguments:
Petitioner’s Side (Supreme Court):
1. Erosion of Judicial Authority: Justice Karnan’s actions, including defying
Supreme Court orders and making baseless allegations against fellow
judges, undermined the judiciary’s integrity and credibility.
2. Judicial Misconduct: The respondent issued orders targeting Supreme
Court judges, which were prima facie invalid and intended to obstruct
justice.
3. Need for Deterrence: Failing to act against such behavior would set a
dangerous precedent, weakening the judiciary’s ability to enforce
accountability.
4. Public Confidence: Justice Karnan’s behavior jeopardized public trust in the
judicial system, warranting swift and decisive action.
Respondent’s Side (Justice Karnan):
 1. Bias Allegations: Justice Karnan claimed he was being targeted due to his
caste and his allegations of corruption within the judiciary.
2. Judicial Independence: He argued that his orders were within his rights as a
High Court judge and that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to curtail
his powers.
3. Opposition to Medical Examination: Justice Karnan viewed the Court’s
directive for a psychiatric evaluation as humiliating and degrading, refusing
to comply.
4. Violation of Dignity: He contended that the contempt proceedings and
public criticism undermined his dignity and that of his office.

e) Judgement:
The Supreme Court convicted Justice C.S. Karnan of criminal contempt, the first
such conviction against a sitting High Court judge in Indian judicial history. The
Court held that:
1. Accountability: Justice Karnan’s actions, including making defamatory
allegations and issuing invalid judicial orders, amounted to willful
disobedience of Supreme Court directives and criminal contempt.
2. Penalty: He was sentenced to six months of simple imprisonment, marking
an unprecedented step to uphold judicial integrity.
3. Judicial Independence and Accountability: While judicial independence is
sacrosanct, it cannot shield misconduct that undermines the rule of law.
4. Public Trust: The Court emphasized that its orders are binding on all,
including sitting judges, and that failure to act against such defiance would
erode public confidence in the judiciary.
The judgment also directed that no court, tribunal, or authority take cognizance of
orders passed by Justice Karnan after the initiation of contempt proceedings.

f) Conclusion:
This case underscores the delicate balance between judicial independence and
accountability. Justice Karnan’s actions highlighted the challenges posed by
misconduct within the judiciary. While the Supreme Court’s intervention was
necessary to uphold the judiciary’s authority and public trust, the case revealed
gaps in institutional mechanisms for handling judicial impropriety.
The judgment sets a precedent that no individual, regardless of rank, is above the
law. However, it also raises concerns about how the judiciary can address such
situations without compromising judicial dignity or independence. Moving
forward, there is a need for clear protocols to deal with judicial misconduct,
including mental health assessments, ensuring fairness while safeguarding the
judiciary’s integrity.

Delhi Judicial Service Association vs. State of Gujarat (1991)

a) Facts:
In September 1989, a disturbing incident occurred in Nadiad, Gujarat, where the
Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), N.L. Patel, was arrested, assaulted, handcuffed,
tied with ropes, and publicly humiliated by Inspector S.R. Sharma and other police
officers. Allegations included forcing the CJM to consume liquor and fabricating
charges under the Bombay Prohibition Act. The CJM claimed he was targeted due
to prior complaints against the police for non-cooperation in judicial processes.
This incident sparked outrage nationwide, with bar associations protesting and
filing petitions to protect the judiciary’s dignity.
The Supreme Court took cognizance of the matter under Article 32, appointing
Justice R.M. Sahai to investigate. The report highlighted the police’s misconduct,
fabricated evidence, and malicious intent to humiliate the judiciary, undermining
public confidence in the rule of law.

b) Statutory Provisions:
 1. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Defines and penalizes acts that undermine
the authority of courts.
2. Article 129 of the Constitution: Grants the Supreme Court the power to
punish for contempt of itself or subordinate courts.
3. Article 142 of the Constitution: Empowers the Supreme Court to pass
orders necessary for complete justice.
4. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Governs the procedural aspects of arrests
and trials, including the treatment of detainees.
5. Constitutional Safeguards: Ensure the independence and security of
judicial officers under India’s constitutional framework.

c) Issues:
1. Did the actions of the police, including the arrest, assault, and humiliation
of the CJM, amount to criminal contempt of court?
2. Can the Supreme Court exercise its jurisdiction to protect subordinate
courts under Article 129?
3. Was the CJM’s arrest based on fabricated evidence, necessitating the
quashing of proceedings to prevent abuse of judicial processes?
4. What institutional safeguards are needed to protect judicial officers from
such incidents in the future?
5. What punishment should be imposed on the police officers for their
misconduct and contempt?

d) Arguments:
Petitioner’s Side (Delhi Judicial Service Association and CJM):
1. Misconduct by Police: The police acted with malicious intent, fabricating
charges to humiliate and undermine the judiciary’s authority.
 2. Contempt of Court: The police’s actions interfered with the administration
of justice, warranting strict penalties to restore public trust.
3. Quashing Proceedings: The proceedings against the CJM were based on
false evidence and should be dismissed to ensure justice.
4. Judicial Independence: Protecting judicial officers is critical to maintaining
the rule of law and public confidence in the judiciary.
Respondent’s Side (Police Officers and State of Gujarat):
1. Denial of Misconduct: The police claimed that the CJM acted
inappropriately and was intoxicated at the time of arrest.
2. Justification of Actions: The police argued that their actions were lawful
and necessitated by the CJM’s behavior.
3. Opposition to Supreme Court Jurisdiction: They contended that the matter
fell under the jurisdiction of the Gujarat High Court, not the Supreme Court.

e) Judgement:
The Supreme Court held the police officers guilty of criminal contempt for
undermining the judiciary's authority and violating the dignity of a judicial officer.
Key rulings included:
1. Punishment for Contempt: Inspector S.R. Sharma was sentenced to six
months of simple imprisonment and fined ₹2,000. Other officers received
varying degrees of punishment based on their roles.
2. Quashing Proceedings: The criminal cases filed against the CJM were
quashed, citing fabricated evidence.
3. Guidelines for Judicial Protection: The Court issued comprehensive
guidelines to protect judicial officers, including prior intimation to district
judges before arresting judicial officers and prohibiting handcuffing unless
absolutely necessary.
4. Accountability of Senior Officers: The Director General of Police and other
senior officials were reprimanded for their inaction and indifference.
f) Conclusion:
This case underscores the importance of protecting the judiciary’s independence
and dignity to maintain public confidence in the rule of law. The Supreme Court’s
intervention restored the CJM’s reputation and set a precedent for addressing
contempt against subordinate courts.
The guidelines issued are a significant step toward preventing such incidents, but
further institutional reforms are needed to ensure accountability and build trust
between the judiciary and law enforcement. This judgment reinforces the
principle that no one is above the law, safeguarding the judiciary's integrity in a
democratic society.

R.K. Anand vs Registrar, Delhi High Court (29 July 2009)

a) Facts
1. The Incident: On 10 January 1999, a speeding BMW car crashed into a
police checkpoint in Delhi, killing six individuals, including three police
officers. The car, allegedly driven by Sanjeev Nanda, a member of a wealthy
and influential family, was suspected of being driven under the influence of
alcohol.
2. Investigation:
o Witness Sunil Kulkarni initially supported the prosecution, identifying
Nanda as the driver and providing key testimony about the accident.
o Over time, Kulkarni was dropped by the prosecution as a witness due
to allegations that he had been "won over" by the defense.
 o The trial was marred by delays, flip-flopping witnesses, and lack of
evidence preservation.
3. The Sting Operation:
o In 2007, NDTV conducted a sting operation where Kulkarni was wired
with a concealed camera and secretly recorded meetings with:
▪ R.K. Anand, Senior Advocate for the defense.
▪ I.U. Khan, the Special Public Prosecutor.
o These recordings showed both advocates engaging in discussions
with Kulkarni to influence his testimony.
4. NDTV Telecast:
o On 30 May 2007, NDTV aired the sting operation, sparking public
outrage. The telecast highlighted how attempts were made to
manipulate the justice system.
o The Delhi High Court took suo moto cognizance of the telecast,
initiating contempt proceedings against R.K. Anand and I.U. Khan
b) Statutory Provisions
1. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:
o Section 2(c): Defines criminal contempt as acts that:
▪ Scandalize or lower the authority of the court.
▪ Prejudice or interfere with judicial proceedings.
▪ Obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice.
o Both lawyers were charged under this provision for attempting to
interfere with the testimony of a court witness.
2. Article 215 of the Indian Constitution:
o Empowers the High Court to punish individuals for contempt to
preserve judicial authority and ensure a fair trial.
3. Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC):
 o Section 164: Protects statements recorded by magistrates to ensure
their reliability and prevent undue influence.
o Section 311: Allows the court to summon or recall witnesses as
necessary for justice.
4. Professional Conduct Rules:
o Lawyers are bound by ethical codes under the Advocates Act, 1961,
which emphasize maintaining the dignity of the legal profession and
upholding the administration of justice

c) Issues
1. Criminal Contempt:
o Did R.K. Anand and I.U. Khan attempt to obstruct or interfere with
the administration of justice by trying to influence a witness?
2. Media Ethics:
o Was NDTV’s sting operation ethical and admissible in a court of law?
Did the telecast violate the sub judice principle by potentially
influencing public opinion during an ongoing trial?
3. Judicial Intervention:
o Could the High Court take suo moto cognizance of the telecast and
initiate contempt proceedings?
4. Punishment:
o Were the penalties imposed on the lawyers proportionate to their
misconduct?

d) Arguments
Prosecution (Delhi High Court):
1. Evidence of Tampering:
 o The sting operation revealed R.K. Anand negotiating with Sunil
Kulkarni to alter his testimony, offering material and financial benefits
in return.
o I.U. Khan suggested strategies to undermine the prosecution’s case,
showing active collusion with the defense.
2. Violation of Judicial Integrity:
o The actions of both lawyers constituted criminal contempt by
obstructing the course of justice and undermining public confidence
in the judiciary.
3. Preservation of Public Trust:
o The court argued that severe penalties were necessary to deter such
unethical behavior and restore faith in the legal system.

Defense (R.K. Anand and I.U. Khan):

1. Admissibility of Sting Evidence:
o The defense argued that the recordings were obtained without
judicial sanction and could not be used as evidence. They also
claimed the videos were edited to misrepresent the events.
2. Violation of Sub Judice:
o The defense contended that NDTV’s telecast was unethical as it aired
during an ongoing trial, potentially influencing public opinion and the
court.
3. Denial of Misconduct:
o Both lawyers denied wrongdoing, with R.K. Anand claiming he was
framed and that NDTV had ulterior motives.
4. Lack of Fair Trial:
 o The defense argued that the High Court acted as both the
complainant and the adjudicator in the contempt proceedings,
violating principles of natural justice.

e) Judgment
1. Guilt Established:
o The Delhi High Court found both R.K. Anand and I.U. Khan guilty of
criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
2. Punishments:
o Barred Appearance: Both lawyers were prohibited from appearing in
the Delhi High Court and subordinate courts for four months.
o Revocation of Senior Advocate Status: Both lawyers were stripped of
their designation as Senior Advocates.
o Monetary Fine: A token fine of ₹2,000 was imposed on each of them.
3. Validity of Evidence:
o The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, ruling that the
sting recordings were admissible and authentic, as their content was
not tampered with.
4. Ethics in Media:
o The court criticized NDTV for airing the sting operation during an
ongoing trial, although it recognized the telecast as being in the
public interest.

f) Conclusion (Own Analysis)

This case serves as a watershed moment in highlighting issues of judicial integrity,
professional ethics, and media responsibility. While the court took strong action
against the accused lawyers to preserve the sanctity of the legal system, the
following lessons emerge:
 1. Ethics in the Legal Profession:
o The case exposed declining ethical standards among legal
professionals, underscoring the need for stricter enforcement of
professional conduct rules.
2. Role of the Media:
o Although the sting operation revealed critical evidence of
misconduct, NDTV’s telecast raised concerns about media trials
potentially interfering with judicial proceedings. This calls for a
balanced approach where public interest reporting does not
compromise the principles of sub judice.
3. Judicial Independence:
o The judgment reinforced the judiciary’s ability to act decisively in
protecting its integrity, ensuring that influential individuals do not
exploit the system.
In conclusion, the decision not only punished the accused but also served as a
deterrent against attempts to subvert justice. It re-emphasized the principle that
no individual, regardless of status, is above the law.

In Re: Arundhati Roy vs Unknown (6 March 2002)

a) Facts
1. Background of the Case:
o The case revolves around contempt of court proceedings initiated by
the Supreme Court against Arundhati Roy, an acclaimed writer,
activist, and critic of the Sardar Sarovar Dam project.
o The court had earlier been monitoring resettlement and
rehabilitation efforts for those displaced by the construction of the
dam under the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) movement.
 o Arundhati Roy, though not a party to the litigation, was associated
with NBA and voiced strong criticism against the Supreme Court’s
decision allowing the construction to continue.
2. Controversial Publications and Actions:
o Roy published the article “The Greater Common Good”, criticizing
the Supreme Court's judgment in the Narmada Bachao Andolan
case. The article alleged insensitivity by the judiciary toward
displaced citizens and questioned the larger implications of the
decision.
o On 30 December 2000, Roy allegedly participated in a protest outside
the Supreme Court. Slogans were shouted, accusing the judiciary of
dishonesty and lack of integrity, which led to a contempt petition
being filed against her.
3. Contempt Proceedings:
o The Supreme Court issued contempt notices to Roy, among others.
While initial contempt proceedings against NBA leaders were
dismissed, the court suo moto initiated contempt proceedings
against Roy based on allegations in her affidavit, which it deemed
scandalous.

b) Statutory Provisions
1. Constitution of India:
o Article 19(1)(a): Grants the right to freedom of speech and
expression, subject to restrictions under Article 19(2).
o Article 129: Declares the Supreme Court as a court of record, with
the power to punish for contempt.
2. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:
o Section 2(c): Defines "criminal contempt" as acts that:
▪ Scandalize or tend to scandalize the authority of a court.
 ▪ Interfere with or obstruct the administration of justice.
3. Indian Penal Code, 1860:
o Section 499: Addresses defamation, which was referenced for
comparative purposes during the arguments.

c) Issues
1. Did the content of Roy’s article and affidavit constitute criminal contempt
by scandalizing the court and undermining public confidence in the
judiciary?
2. Was Roy’s participation in the protest and subsequent affidavit a legitimate
exercise of her freedom of speech or an abuse of this right?
3. Should the judiciary tolerate harsh criticism as part of its democratic
accountability?

d) Arguments
Prosecution (Supreme Court as Petitioner):
1. Scandalizing the Court:
o The language used by Roy in her affidavit, such as accusing the court
of issuing notices to "silence criticism" and "muzzle dissent," was a
direct attack on the institution, not just individual judges.
2. Undermining Public Confidence:
o Such allegations create distrust in the judiciary, damaging its
credibility and integrity.
3. Affirmation of Contempt:
o Despite being given opportunities to apologize or show remorse, Roy
stood by her statements, further reinforcing the contemptuous
nature of her actions.
Defense (Arundhati Roy):
1. Freedom of Speech:
o Roy invoked her fundamental right to criticize judicial decisions and
participate in peaceful protests, emphasizing that criticism of public
institutions, including the judiciary, is vital in a democracy.
2. Lack of Malicious Intent:
o She argued that her statements were not meant to scandalize the
court but to highlight systemic issues and advocate for displaced
people.
3. Public Interest:
o Her criticism was made in the larger public interest, addressing socio-
economic and environmental concerns.

e) Judgment
1. Findings:
o The Supreme Court ruled that Roy’s affidavit contained statements
that crossed the limits of fair criticism and constituted criminal
contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
o The court emphasized that criticism should not be a shield for
reckless or baseless attacks on judicial integrity.
2. Punishment:
o Arundhati Roy was sentenced to one-day imprisonment and fined
₹2,000. Failure to pay the fine would result in an additional three-
month jail term.
3. Balancing Free Speech and Judicial Respect:
o The court upheld the importance of free speech but clarified that it
cannot extend to scandalizing the judiciary or obstructing justice.
f) Conclusion (Own Analysis)
The Arundhati Roy case exemplifies the delicate balance between upholding
judicial dignity and protecting freedom of speech in a democracy. While
constructive criticism is necessary for institutional accountability, the judiciary's
authority must be protected from baseless or malicious attacks that erode public
confidence.
• Judiciary’s Response:
o The judgment reinforced the judiciary's zero tolerance toward acts
that threaten its integrity while leaving room for respectful and
constructive criticism.
• Limits of Free Speech:
o Roy’s stance pushed the boundaries of freedom of speech,
highlighting the thin line between fair criticism and contempt.
• Larger Implications:
o The case underscores the challenges faced by activists, writers, and
institutions in navigating controversial public debates. It calls for
reforms to ensure fair avenues for dissent while protecting the
judiciary from undue influence.
In summary, the judgment is a landmark decision in defining the scope of judicial
contempt and its coexistence with democratic freedoms. However, it also raises
questions about judicial sensitivity to criticism, reflecting the evolving dynamics of
justice in India.