In A First, A High Court Judge To Argue His Transfer Case In Supreme Court

Justice C S Karnan will argue against the collegium’s proposal to transfer him out of Madras High Court.

Updated on: 9 January 2017 12:38 pm

For the very first time in the history of Indian judiciary, a High Court judge will argue his own case against a transfer in the Supreme Court(SC).

Justice C S Karnan has formally informed the apex court that he will appear in person to argue his case. He has been asked to vacate his official bungalow in Chennai so that a newly appointed judge could be accomodated, reports Indian Express.

The High Court has also asked the judge to return 12 files that are allegedly still in his possession.

Justice Karnan is currently a sitting judge at the Calcutta High Court and had informed the Supreme Court on December 21 that he was interested to argue his case against the collegium’s proposal to transfer him out of Madras High Court.

Earlier in February 2016, SC had recommended Justice Karnan's transfer and the High Court served him with the proposal. But Karnan stayed his transfer order in a suo motu which was issued on February 12 by then Chief Justice of India T S Thakur.

Seeking a response from the CJI regarding his transfer, Karnan had asked him “not to interfere” with his jurisdiction. He questioned the authority of the CJI as the head of the Collegium to issue transfer orders for “better administration”.

According to an Economic Times report, Karnan had put the onus of his actions on "loss of mental balance due to mental frustrations" over alleged caste bias against him in the High Court in the letter to the SC.

Justice Karnan will now appear on February 13 befor a bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy. In his letter, Justice Karnan sought the discharge of his advocate and apprised that he would argue his case on his own. Last week, Karnan's plea was accepted by the bench and allowed his counsel to withdraw.

This is not the first time that Justice Karnan courted a controversy. Earlier, in June 2013, he had ruled that a couple of legal age indulging in sexual gratification will be considered as married.

However, he had to cancel the order after facing backlash from different corners.