Justice Kurian Joseph was one of the judges on the seven-member Bench of the Supreme Court which found Justice C.S.Karnan guilty of foul-mouthing brother judges and handed out a six-month jail term to the latter. Karnan had accused the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court of not assigning appropriate cases to his Bench. He also blamed some judges for 'insulting' him because of his caste. He questioned their integrity in ample measure.
Kurian Joseph alongwith three other judges questioned the 'arbitrariness' of the Chief Justice of India in assignment of roster in various cases. He has also alleged that CJI was remotely controlled by an external force. Being remotely controlled is also a manifestation of corruption. He had earlier questioned the right of the then CJI Khehar to hold meetings of judges during Easter and asked if he would do the same during Diwali or Eid.
Allegations of Karnan and Kurian have many similarities. There is one vital difference though. Karnan had the courage of conviction to battle single-handedly whereas Kurian only toed the line of three brother judges in addressing the press regarding their grievances against the CJI , while in service. He 'disclosed' the remote-control aspect only after his retirement.
Kurian Thomas contradicts himself with ease. One day he says that higher judiciary is free from corruption. Just a few days later he argues that the CJI was remote-controlled. One day he insinuates that the government was remote-controlling the CJI. (Who else can do this now?) Soon thereafter, he hastens to play safe complimenting the prime minister and CJI for holding discussions between themselves.
Allegations of Kurian Joseph are serious though he has aired them irresponsibly and unprofessionally. These charges place the government and the Supreme Court in the dock. It is incumbent on them both to ask him to prove his charges or be prepared to be treated as he and other judges treated Karnan in the Supreme Court suo motu case against Karnan. A delinquent and loose-tongued judge of the Supreme Court deserves to be dealt with at least as firmly as a High Court judge.
Section 2(c) of The Contempt of Courts Act defines criminal contempt as follows:
"Criminal contempt means the publication (whether
by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible
representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other
act whatsoever which-
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to
lower the authority of, any court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due
course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends
to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner."
The claim that the CJI was remote-controlled certainly lowers the authority of the court and calls for appropriate response from the court.
Kurian Joseph alongwith three other judges questioned the 'arbitrariness' of the Chief Justice of India in assignment of roster in various cases. He has also alleged that CJI was remotely controlled by an external force. Being remotely controlled is also a manifestation of corruption. He had earlier questioned the right of the then CJI Khehar to hold meetings of judges during Easter and asked if he would do the same during Diwali or Eid.
Allegations of Karnan and Kurian have many similarities. There is one vital difference though. Karnan had the courage of conviction to battle single-handedly whereas Kurian only toed the line of three brother judges in addressing the press regarding their grievances against the CJI , while in service. He 'disclosed' the remote-control aspect only after his retirement.
Kurian Thomas contradicts himself with ease. One day he says that higher judiciary is free from corruption. Just a few days later he argues that the CJI was remote-controlled. One day he insinuates that the government was remote-controlling the CJI. (Who else can do this now?) Soon thereafter, he hastens to play safe complimenting the prime minister and CJI for holding discussions between themselves.
Allegations of Kurian Joseph are serious though he has aired them irresponsibly and unprofessionally. These charges place the government and the Supreme Court in the dock. It is incumbent on them both to ask him to prove his charges or be prepared to be treated as he and other judges treated Karnan in the Supreme Court suo motu case against Karnan. A delinquent and loose-tongued judge of the Supreme Court deserves to be dealt with at least as firmly as a High Court judge.
Section 2(c) of The Contempt of Courts Act defines criminal contempt as follows:
"Criminal contempt means the publication (whether
by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible
representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other
act whatsoever which-
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to
lower the authority of, any court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due
course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends
to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner."
The claim that the CJI was remote-controlled certainly lowers the authority of the court and calls for appropriate response from the court.
No comments:
Post a Comment