Delhi High Court dismisses Hail Mary by Justice Karnan

It was always going to be a long shot. The Delhi High Court yesterday dismissed a writ petition filed by Justice CS Karnan, wherein he had challenged the orders of the Supreme Court, alleging that the principles of natural justice were not complied with during his trial, as well as the constitutionality of the Contempt of Courts Act..The judgment delivered by the Bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar starts off with an observation of Chief Justice of India-designate Justice Dipak Misra in Amar Pal Singh v. State of U.P, which states,.“A Judge is required to maintain decorum and sanctity which are inherent in judicial discipline and restraint. A Judge functioning at any level has dignity in the eyes of public and credibility of the entire system is dependent on the use of dignified language and sustained restraint, moderation and sobriety. It is not to be forgotten that independence of the Judiciary has an insegregable and inseparable link with its credibility.”.While holding that the challenge to the orders of the Supreme Court is untenable, the bench observed that counsel for Justice Karnan, Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, misstated the landmark Supreme Court judgment in A.R. Antulay v. R. S. Nayak and wrongly asserted that,.“(The SC has) while declining a writ of certiorari at the hands of a Bench of two Judges against an order of a Bench of five Judges made it clear that the order of the Five-Judge Bench, which was one rendered without jurisdiction, could be challenged before the High Court.”.The Court also observed that the SC rules have envisaged a remedy of an appeal, which has to filed within 15 days of the order of refusal by the Registrar to receive a petition on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause..“The petitioner therefore, had an efficacious alternate remedy available to him by way of an appeal prescribed under the Rules and has admittedly failed to invoke the same.” .The Bench further observed that the challenge to the constitutionality of the Contempt of Courts Act in the present case does not lie inasmuch as the Supreme Court has not exercised power under the Contempt of Courts Act but invoked its inherent jurisdiction under Article 129 of the Constitution of India..Nedumpara had also contended that the proceedings before the Supreme Court are void ab initio and illegal for the reason that principles of natural justice were not complied with..The Court observed that the petitioner was served with the notice and was given more than ample opportunity to file his response, but instead of availing the opportunities, the petitioner resorted to passing orders against the judges of the Supreme Court and making further contumacious statements to the press. It was further observed that the record of the proceedings shows that the petitioner never sought any opportunity to lead evidence..“He was given repeated and adequate opportunity to present his defence. The petitioner’s communications, orders and conduct establish that he had full knowledge of the orders of the court, proceedings as well as the material against him. It needs bearing in mind that the case is not concerned with an illiterate or impoverished person but with a legally trained person, an adjudicator holding a Constitutional position.” .The Court held that the submission that principles of natural justice were not complied with is clearly not borne out from the record..Read the judgment: