Multiple blemishes Six months behind bars await Mr Justice CS Karnan, it would take far longer for the judiciary to recover from the infamy of what has transpired in recent months and there is no need to recount details. If proof were needed of their Lordships of the Supreme Court’s acute embarrassment at the way their “system” (which they praise skyhigh and ridicule others’) has shot itself in the foot, it comes from the “gag order” they imposed on the media: restricting it from reporting the reactions of the man whose elevation to a High Court bench was in the first place questionable. The shenanigans that have brought politicians and officials into disrepute have now infected the judiciary: and its leadership has proved inept at keeping in check an errant member of the “clan”. The gag order is worrisome and has larger ramifications that we hope their Lordships have considered. For it sets a precedent that lesser judges may use to stifle informed criticism. Surely it was not part of the Constitutional scheme for the judiciary to tuck itself away in an ivory tower. Many will forcefully contend that Justice Karnan had left the seven-judge bench no alternative to its stiff penalty: others would argue with equal vehemence that it was the failure of Justice Karnan’s peers that permitted the controversy to thus snowball. Critics would also perceive some pique and deflated egos in the “verdict” ~ the technical propriety of which is being quizzed by a section of legal experts. Also queried is the propriety of the court ordering an assessment of Justice Karnan’s mental capacities, then proceeding to act before an expert’s report was available because Justice Karnan had refused the medical procedure. Will such self-assessment hold good in all cases?

There is, however, every reason to commend their Lordships laying down that there can be no “special” yardsticks for offenders just because of the positions they hold, or held. If only the common man could believe that would apply under all circumstances. All, alas, are not equal before the law, and cracking the whip in the present instance would be seen as the result of their Lordships feeling particularly slighted. To cite specifics might not be appropriate, but have others not faced the kind of barbs Justice Karnan has been throwing? Another sore point being that the concept of contempt is outmoded, and like a priest’s robe covers a multitude of sins. The apex court’s short-circuiting prescribed procedure, and awaiting Justice Karnan’s removal after impeachment, is being explained away as avoiding a cumbersome process. Another explanation is that with relations between the government and the judiciary being severely strained over the method of appointments, and MPs frequently protesting judicial “over-reach” their Lordships preferred not to risk recourse to a system in which they were not sure of “victory”. Yet having themselves been exposed to the fallibility of the collegium method, for how much longer can they resist introduction of a system which makes for more comprehensive evaluation and accountability in higher appointments? There are, indeed, streaks of a silver lining to the Karnan cloud.