• Appearing for the Bar Council, Senior Advocate S Prabhakaran made an impassioned appeal for action to be taken against former judge CS Karnan for continuing derogatory social media posts.
• A single Bench of the Madras High Court on Thursday referred an original criminal petition, filed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu against retired High Court Judge, CS Karnan for passing rape threats and sexually coloured remarks against wives of judges, women lawyers and female court staff, to a Divisional Bench.
• The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu has moved a criminal petition in Madras High Court seeking action against former High Court Judge CS Karnan for derogatory posts on social media against women and the judiciary. (Bar Council of Tamil Nadu v. The Director General of Police and Ors.).
• Justice T Ravindran heard arguments made by Senior Advocate S Prabhakaran for the Bar Council, before referring the matter to a Division Bench that is already dealing with a Writ Petition moved by the Council on the issue.
• The petition stated that in a viral video shared by one Dr. M. Dhanasekaran, Karnan has used indecent, obnoxious, un-parliamentary language, threats against the wives of the Judges of the High Court and Supreme Court, both serving and retired.
• The senior lawyer vehemently contended that despite the High Court's earlier order directing the removal of Karnan's offensive posts, similar posts continued to be uploaded with no action being taken against the controversial Judge.
• "Look at the plight of the judges, they are being insulted like anything everyday post is coming, day before yesterday he has posted in Facebook", he added.
• The Judge responded that the Division Bench could hear the plea more properly, since it was already hearing allied matters.
• Additional Public Prosecutor M Prabhavati submitted that an FIR had already been registered upon a complaint made by one, Advocate Devika. While the complaint was initially registered under Sections 153 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 67-A of the Information Technology Act was subsequently added, she informed. She sought time to file a written statement in this regard, but before the other Bench.
• Expressing his inclination to refer the matter to the Division Bench, Justice Ravindran stated that he would pass orders to this effect.
• During arguments, Senior Advocate Prabhakaran also made reference to the Supreme Court Order of 2017, which placed an embargo against Justice Karnan from indulging in further activities of the kind deprecated by the Court.
WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
• In spite of this order, Justice Karnan continued his acts, Prabakaran pointed out. He further submitted,"Unfortunately all the advocates are seeing it, silently keeping quiet on it and I do not know why the government is keeping quiet on this for such a long time!"
• On November 10, the Madras High Court issued orders directing that derogatory remarks made by former High Court judge, Justice CS Karnan be blocked from social media.
• The Bench of Justices M Sathyanarayanan and R Hemalatha had orally observed:"...it is rather unfortunate (to note that Justice CS Karnan, who had held an important Constitutional post), has gone down to such a level and repeatedly scandalised and made vituperative, obscene and unparliamentary attacks against Judges of the Supreme Court, the High Court and their families..."
WHAT ARE YOUR VIEWS ABOUT THE STATEMENTS BY THE HIGH COURT? MENTION YOUR VIEWS IN THE COMMENTS BELOW!