Home Education General Knowledge Justice C.S. Karnan: A Controversial Figure in India’s Judicial History

Justice C.S. Karnan: A Controversial Figure in India’s Judicial History

Justice Chinnaswamy Swaminathan Karnan stands as one of the most controversial and polarizing figures in Indian judicial history. His eight-year tenure as a High Court judge was marked by unprecedented confrontations with the judiciary, allegations of caste discrimination, and ultimately, his distinction as the first sitting High Court judge in India to be imprisoned for contempt of court. His case raises profound questions about judicial accountability, caste representation in the Indian judiciary, and the limits of judicial independence.

Early Life and Professional Background

Justice Karnan was born on June 12, 1955, in Karnatham village in Tamil Nadu’s Cuddalore district into a Dalit family. His father, Chinnaswamy Swaminathan, was a school teacher and headmaster who received the President’s Best Teacher Award, demonstrating the family’s commitment to education despite their marginalized social status. This educational legacy would prove significant in shaping Karnan’s later criticisms of systemic exclusion in elite institutions. ^[1]^[2]

After completing his schooling in local government institutions, Karnan pursued higher education, obtaining a Bachelor of Science degree in botany from The New College, Chennai, before graduating with a Bachelor of Laws degree from Madras Law College in 1983. Upon graduation, he enrolled as an advocate before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and began practicing civil law. During his legal career, he served in various government positions, including legal adviser to the Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewage Board, government advocate in civil suits, and standing counsel for the central government. ^[3]^[4]^[2]^[1]

Karnan’s early career also revealed political inclinations. According to intelligence reports, he served as an AIADMK booth agent during the 2002 assembly polls but later became disillusioned with the party and moved to the Congress. This political background would later influence perceptions of his judicial conduct and motivations. ^[5]

Judicial Appointment and Early Controversies

Karnan’s appointment as a Madras High Court judge on March 30, 2009, was itself controversial and emblematic of broader issues within India’s judicial appointment system. His name was recommended by Justice A.K. Ganguly, then Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, to the collegium headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan. Notably, Ganguly later admitted he could not recall why Karnan’s name was recommended for elevation, and another collegium member expressed regret over the appointment. ^[6]^[5]^[4]^[7]^[2]

Justice P.K. Misra, who was part of the collegium, later stated: “I am extremely sorry that I was part of the collegium that recommended such a name”. Ganguly justified the appointment by explaining that Karnan “represented a particular caste that should have been represented in the choice of judges,” highlighting the role of caste considerations in judicial appointments. This admission underscores the complex dynamics surrounding representation and merit in India’s higher judiciary. ^[5]^[4]

Timeline of Major Events in Justice CS Karnan’s Life and Career (1955-2020)

Pattern of Confrontations and Allegations

Within two years of his appointment, Justice Karnan began a pattern of public confrontations that would define his judicial career. In November 2011, he wrote to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes alleging caste-based discrimination by fellow judges at the Madras High Court. His most shocking allegation was that a colleague had deliberately touched his head with his foot because he was a Dalit. This incident, according to Karnan, occurred at a social function and represented systematic humiliation based on his caste identity. ^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]

The 2011 complaint marked the beginning of an escalating series of public accusations. Karnan held press conferences in his chambers, detailing incidents of alleged discrimination and demanding action from higher authorities. His willingness to publicly air internal judicial disputes was unprecedented and created significant controversy within the legal establishment. ^[8]

In January 2014, Justice Karnan made headlines by storming into a courtroom where a division bench was hearing a PIL on judicial appointments. He interrupted proceedings to declare that the selection process was “not fair” and threatened to file an affidavit exposing irregularities. This brazen intervention in ongoing judicial proceedings violated established protocols and further strained his relationships with colleagues. ^[10]^[12]

The situation deteriorated significantly in 2015 when Karnan accused then-Chief Justice of Madras High Court Sanjay Kishan Kaul of harassment, corruption, and assigning him only “insignificant or dummy” cases. He initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against Justice Kaul, leading the Supreme Court to intervene and stay the proceedings. These escalating confrontations ultimately led to his transfer to the Calcutta High Court in February 2016. ^[10]^[8]

The Transfer Controversy and Defiance

Justice Karnan’s transfer to the Calcutta High Court became another flashpoint in his confrontational approach to authority. In an unprecedented move, he passed a suo motu order staying his own transfer, directly challenging the Supreme Court’s administrative authority. This action had no constitutional precedent and created a legal crisis, as there were no existing provisions for a judge to stay his own transfer order. ^[8]^[7]

The Supreme Court quickly intervened, with a bench comprising Justices J.S. Khehar and R. Banumathi lifting his stay order and restraining him from passing any further suo motu orders. Eventually, after a meeting with then-Chief Justice T.S. Thakur, Karnan agreed to the transfer and even tendered an apology, describing his stay order as the result of “mental stress”. ^[6]^[13]^[8]

However, this apparent reconciliation was temporary. Upon assuming charge at the Calcutta High Court, Karnan continued his confrontational approach, now expanding his allegations beyond the Madras High Court to include Supreme Court judges whom he believed were responsible for his troubles.

The Letter to Prime Minister Modi and Escalation

The defining moment in Justice Karnan’s career came in January 2017 when he wrote a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi containing what he called an “initial list” of 20 sitting and retired judges whom he accused of corruption. This list included judges from both the Supreme Court and various High Courts, representing an unprecedented public attack on the integrity of India’s higher judiciary. ^[9]^[14]

The letter to the Prime Minister was remarkable not only for its scope but also for its detailed allegations. Karnan accused specific judges of various forms of misconduct, including financial impropriety, caste discrimination, and even more serious allegations involving personal conduct. He provided no evidence to support these claims but demanded government investigation and action against the named individuals. ^[15]

This communication represented a fundamental breach of judicial propriety and triggered the Supreme Court’s decision to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings against him. The unprecedented nature of a sitting judge making such widespread and unsubstantiated allegations against the entire judicial establishment created a constitutional crisis that required immediate intervention.

Supreme Court’s Response and Contempt Proceedings

The Supreme Court’s response to Justice Karnan’s allegations was swift and decisive. On February 8, 2017, a seven-judge constitutional bench headed by Chief Justice J.S. Khehar issued a show cause notice to Karnan, marking the first time in Indian judicial history that contempt proceedings were initiated against a sitting High Court judge. ^[9]^[16]

The bench, comprising the seven senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, was constituted to handle this unprecedented situation. The judges included Chief Justice Khehar and Justices Dipak Misra, J. Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M.B. Lokur, P.C. Ghose, and Kurian Joseph. The court directed Karnan to refrain from handling any judicial or administrative work and to appear before it to show cause. ^[6]^[16]^[17]

Justice Karnan’s response to the Supreme Court’s notice further escalated the confrontation. Instead of appearing before the court or showing contrition, he wrote to the Supreme Court Registry arguing that contempt proceedings against a sitting High Court judge were “not maintainable” and should be referred to Parliament. He contended that only impeachment proceedings could remove a High Court judge, not contempt actions. ^[13]^[17]

Psychiatric Evaluation Order and Counter-Orders

As Justice Karnan continued to defy court orders and failed to appear for hearings, the Supreme Court took the extraordinary step of ordering his psychiatric evaluation on May 1, 2017. The court directed that he undergo medical examination by a panel of government doctors, questioning whether his actions could be those of a person of sound mind. ^[9]^[18]

Justice Karnan’s response to this directive was characteristic of his confrontational approach. Instead of complying with the psychiatric evaluation order, he retaliated by issuing his own “order” directing similar psychiatric tests for the seven Supreme Court judges hearing his case. This counter-order demonstrated his complete rejection of judicial hierarchy and authority. ^[9]

The most shocking development came on May 8, 2017, when Justice Karnan passed what he termed a “judgment” finding the Chief Justice of India and seven other Supreme Court judges guilty under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and sentencing them to five years of rigorous imprisonment. This unprecedented action represented a direct attack on the Supreme Court’s authority and marked the point of no return in his confrontation with the judicial establishment.^[6]^[9]

Conviction and Imprisonment

On May 9, 2017, the seven-judge Supreme Court bench found Justice Karnan guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to six months of imprisonment. The court held that his actions constituted the “grossest and gravest” act of contempt, making him liable for punishment for his “unsavoury actions and behaviour”. This marked the first time in Indian judicial history that a sitting High Court judge was sentenced to imprisonment. ^[9]^[19]^[20]

The Supreme Court’s detailed judgment, released later, comprehensively documented Justice Karnan’s pattern of misconduct and defiance. The court found that his allegations against fellow judges were malicious, defamatory, and lacking any material foundation. It determined that his conduct had “blemished and tarnished the image” of individual judges and the judiciary as a whole, necessitating suo motu contempt proceedings to protect the institution’s integrity.^[15]

Justice Karnan initially evaded arrest, becoming a fugitive for 43 days after his retirement on June 12, 2017. During this period, he moved between various locations, using false identities and switching mobile phone numbers to avoid detection by authorities. He was finally arrested on June 20, 2017, from a resort in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, by the West Bengal CID, working in coordination with Tamil Nadu police.^[19]^[18]

Prison Term and Release

Justice Karnan was lodged in Kolkata’s Presidency Correctional Home, where he served his full six-month sentence. During his imprisonment, he reportedly offered legal aid to fellow inmates and maintained his belief in the righteousness of his cause. His legal team made several attempts to secure his release, including appeals to the President of India for remission of his sentence, but these efforts were unsuccessful. ^[21]^[22]

On December 20, 2017, Justice Karnan was released after completing his six-month term. His release was attended by his wife Saraswati Karnan and elder son, who had traveled from Chennai. Reports indicated that he had lost approximately 15 kilograms during his imprisonment but remained in good spirits and health. ^[19]^[23]

Despite his imprisonment, Justice Karnan showed no signs of remorse or change in his fundamental positions. His associate stated that he remained “undeterred” by his imprisonment and intended to continue his “fight against caste discrimination” in the judiciary. This stance indicated that his confrontational approach was driven by deeply held convictions about systemic discrimination rather than mere personal grievances. ^[22]

The Caste Dimension and Systemic Issues

Central to understanding Justice Karnan’s case is the question of caste representation in India’s higher judiciary. His consistent allegations of caste-based discrimination, while often dismissed by the judicial establishment, highlighted genuine concerns about the lack of diversity in judicial appointments. Data shows that Dalit representation in the higher judiciary has been consistently low throughout India’s independence.

According to recent statistics, between 2018 and 2023, only 17 percent of High Court appointments were from Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, or Other Backward Classes communities, despite these groups constituting a significant portion of India’s population. At the Supreme Court level, the underrepresentation is even more stark, with only four judges from Scheduled Caste and OBC communities serving as of 2023, representing just 12.1 percent of the court’s strength. ^[30]^[31]^[32]

The National Commission for Scheduled Castes has observed that the higher judiciary appears to be drawn “from the very sections of society that were most infected with the age-old social prejudices”. This institutional composition potentially influences judicial decision-making, particularly in cases involving caste-related issues and social justice concerns. ^[32]

Justice Karnan’s allegations of discrimination, while often presented in inflammatory terms, resonated with broader Dalit and civil rights organizations who saw his treatment as emblematic of systemic exclusion. Some groups rallied behind him, viewing his confrontation with the judiciary as a courageous challenge to entrenched caste hierarchies within the legal system. ^[33]

Judicial Accountability and Constitutional Questions

The Justice Karnan case exposed significant gaps in India’s judicial accountability framework. The Constitution provides only one mechanism for removing High Court judges: impeachment by Parliament with a two-thirds majority. This cumbersome process has rarely been used successfully, creating a practical immunity for judges who engage in misconduct short of impeachable offenses. ^[34]

The Supreme Court’s use of contempt powers to effectively neutralize Justice Karnan, while legally justified, raised questions about the appropriate limits of judicial self-regulation. Critics argued that the court’s actions, including ordering psychiatric evaluation and ultimately imprisoning him, demonstrated the dangers of judges policing themselves without external oversight. ^[8]^[35]

The case also highlighted the opacity of the collegium system for judicial appointments. The admission by Justice Ganguly that he could not recall why Karnan was recommended, combined with another collegium member’s expression of regret, underscored the need for more transparent and accountable appointment processes. ^[5]^[4]

Constitutional experts have suggested that the Karnan case demonstrates the need for intermediate disciplinary measures between minor reprimands and full impeachment. The absence of such mechanisms forces the judiciary to rely on contempt powers, which may be inappropriate for addressing systemic behavioral issues or professional misconduct. ^[34]

Impact on Judicial Discourse and Reforms

Justice Karnan’s case had a lasting impact on discussions about judicial reform in India. His confrontational approach, while widely condemned, brought attention to legitimate concerns about diversity, accountability, and transparency in the judicial system. The unprecedented nature of his actions forced the legal community to confront uncomfortable questions about institutional culture and representation.

The case contributed to ongoing debates about the collegium system’s effectiveness and the need for alternative appointment mechanisms. The National Judicial Appointments Commission, which was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015, represented one attempt to address these concerns, though the judiciary successfully resisted external involvement in appointments.

Justice Karnan’s allegations, despite their often-inflammatory presentation, highlighted the need for better mechanisms to address complaints of discrimination and misconduct within the judiciary. The fact that his initial complaints through proper channels appeared to receive little serious consideration may have contributed to his eventual public confrontational approach.

The case also demonstrated the challenges faced by judges from marginalized communities in accessing informal networks and cultural capital that often influence career progression in elite institutions. Justice Karnan’s isolation within the judicial community, whether self-imposed or imposed by others, illustrated broader patterns of exclusion that extend beyond formal appointment processes.

International Implications and Comparative Perspectives

The Justice Karnan case attracted international attention as an example of judicial dysfunction in a major democracy. International legal observers noted the unusual spectacle of a sitting judge engaging in public warfare with his own institution, raising questions about the maturity and effectiveness of India’s judicial system.

Comparative studies of judicial accountability in other democracies suggest that India’s reliance on impeachment as the sole removal mechanism is outdated and ineffective. Many developed legal systems have established judicial conduct boards or similar institutions that can address misconduct through graduated sanctions short of removal from office. ^[35]

The case also highlighted India’s ongoing struggles with caste-based discrimination in public institutions. International human rights organizations have long criticized India’s failure to adequately address caste discrimination, and the Karnan case provided a high-profile example of how these issues manifest even in elite institutional settings.

The spectacle of India’s judiciary imprisoning one of its own members for contempt also raised questions about judicial independence and the appropriate limits of institutional self-defense. While the Supreme Court’s actions were legally justified, they demonstrated the potential for institutional interests to conflict with individual rights and due process considerations.

Legacy and Continuing Relevance

Justice C.S. Karnan’s legacy remains deeply controversial and multifaceted. To his critics, he represents a cautionary tale about the dangers of personal grievances overwhelming professional responsibility and the importance of institutional discipline in maintaining judicial credibility. His actions caused significant damage to the judiciary’s reputation and created dangerous precedents for future misconduct.

To his supporters, however, Karnan represents a courageous whistleblower who sacrificed his career and freedom to expose systemic discrimination and corruption within India’s judicial establishment. They view his harsh treatment as evidence of the very institutional bias he sought to highlight, seeing his imprisonment as punishment for challenging entrenched privilege rather than justice for genuine misconduct.

Recent developments in judicial appointments suggest that some of Karnan’s concerns about representation have gained traction. The appointment of Justice B.R. Gavai as the second Dalit Chief Justice of India in 2024 indicates growing awareness of diversity issues within the judiciary. However, overall representation statistics remain largely unchanged, suggesting that systemic problems persist. ^[36]

The case continues to influence discussions about judicial reform, particularly regarding accountability mechanisms and appointment transparency. Legal scholars and reform advocates frequently cite the Karnan case as evidence for the need for comprehensive judicial reforms that address both institutional culture and structural inequities.

Justice Karnan’s story also serves as a reminder of the complex intersections between individual agency, institutional power, and social justice in democratic societies. His case illustrates how personal experiences of discrimination can evolve into broader challenges to institutional legitimacy, raising fundamental questions about representation, accountability, and justice in democratic institutions.

Conclusion

Justice C.S. Karnan’s extraordinary career represents one of the most significant challenges to judicial authority in Indian legal history. His journey from a marginalized background to High Court judge, followed by his spectacular fall and imprisonment, encapsulates many of the tensions and contradictions within India’s judicial system.

While his methods were often inappropriate and his allegations frequently unsubstantiated, Karnan’s case brought attention to legitimate concerns about caste discrimination, institutional accountability, and the need for greater diversity in judicial appointments. His willingness to sacrifice his career and freedom for his convictions, whatever one thinks of their merit, demonstrated a level of commitment to his cause that transcends simple personal grievance.

The institutional response to Karnan’s challenges, while legally justified, also revealed limitations in the judiciary’s capacity for self-reflection and reform. The harsh treatment he received, combined with the defensive posture adopted by the judicial establishment, may have inadvertently validated some of his claims about institutional bias and resistance to change.

Ultimately, Justice Karnan’s case serves as both a cautionary tale about the dangers of unchecked confrontational behavior and a catalyst for ongoing discussions about judicial reform and social justice. His complex legacy will likely continue to influence debates about judicial accountability, diversity, and institutional culture for years to come, ensuring that his impact on Indian jurisprudence extends far beyond his controversial eight-year tenure on the bench.

The questions raised by his case—about representation, accountability, transparency, and justice—remain largely unresolved, making Justice C.S. Karnan’s story not just a historical curiosity but a continuing challenge to India’s legal establishment to live up to its highest ideals of equality and justice for all citizens, regardless of their social background or identity.