Unconstitutional, says Karnan

Unconstitutional, says Karnan
x
Highlights

Calcutta High Court justice C S Karnan hit back at the Supreme Court on Friday, calling its warrant against him ‘unconstitutional’ and ‘an attempt to ruin’ his life as he was a Dalit. “I am being targeted as I am a Dalit. 

Kolkata: Calcutta High Court justice C S Karnan hit back at the Supreme Court on Friday, calling its warrant against him ‘unconstitutional’ and ‘an attempt to ruin’ his life as he was a Dalit. “I am being targeted as I am a Dalit.

This is a caste issue. The order has been deliberately issued against me. This is an attempt to ruin my life. The warrant is unconstitutional,” Karnan told the media at a hurriedly organised press conference at his residence here. A seven-judge bench had issued the warrant order earlier in the day.

Justice Karnan also signed an order in front of the reporters, directing the CBI to “register, investigate and file a report before the appropriate court of law under Article 226 read with Section 482 CrPC to prevent the abuse of process of any court....”

In the same order, he also said: “I further direct the secretary generals of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha to place the entire facts of the case before the Speaker for appropriate inquiry under the Judges’ Enquiry Act.”

“Consequently, I direct his Excellency the President of India to recall the bailable warrant illegally issued by the Supreme Court on 10.3.2017 and lift the non-work allotment ban of portfolio allocation and file a report within seven days before this Hon’ble Court,” the order stated.

Justice Karnan had, however, sent a letter to the CJI asking him to restore his judicial and administrative powers, which the bench rejected.

Asked whether it was appropriate for a sitting judge to talk to the media on this issue, Justice Karnan said, “It is a national issue. It should reach the people. Let there be transparency. What’s the secret? Nobody takes a suo motu warrant against a sitting judge.”

According to Karnan, only Parliament had the power to initiate action against a sitting High Court judge by way of an impeachment motion. The contempt action against him “is erroneous and has been wilfully and wantonly passed with mala fide intention”

Show Full Article
Print Article
Next Story
More Stories
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENTS