Justice Karnans application for Remission to H.E.The President of India(A4)
MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA
Advocate
304, Hari Chambers, 3
rd
Floor, 58
–
64, S.B.S. Road, Fort, Mumbai
–
400 023
Ph: +91 98205 35428(M), 02222626634, 04842368737, 02222626432,01122146145
E
–
mail:
mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com
To
His Excellency Shri.
Ram Nath Kovind,
President of India,
Rashtrapati
Bhavan,
Raisina Hill, New Delhi,110 004.
Sub
.
:
Memorandum/Representation under Article 72 of the
Constitution of India by
Justice
C.S.
Karnan
seeking remission
of his sentence of six months imposed on him by a seven
–
judge bench of the Supreme Court, preferred through his
counsels, Shri Mathews J.
Nedump
ara, B.K.Adhikari, A.C.
Philip
and
C
.J.
Joveson
R
ef
.
:
1.
The
memorandum
dated 17.05.2017,
under article 72 of
the Constitution by
Hon’ble Shri Justice C.S. Karnan, Judge,
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
through his lawyer
s
,
which has since been
forwarded by the President’s secretary
to the Ministry of Home, which has since been pending there.
2.
Letter dated 13.05.2017, by Justice Karnan, in furtherance
of the memorandum above.
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR E
XCELLENCY
,
1.
Inscrutable are the ways of the
almighty. It could be His will
that Justice C.S.
Karnan’s be the first representation which Your
Excellency
receives
as the President of India on the very first day of
assumption of office. And that too
,
seeking the exercise of
Your
Excellency’s
extraordi
nary
jurisdiction under Article 72 of the
Constitution of India.
2.
Nowhere in the world, a lawyer whose sacred duty
is
to protect
the life, freedom and
liberty of his client could have ever faced the
kind of injustice, nay, pain, insult, humiliation and ago
ny the
MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA
Advocate
304, Hari Chambers, 3
rd
Floor, 58
–
64, S.B.S. Road, Fort, Mumbai
–
400 023
Ph: +91 98205 35428(M), 02222626634, 04842368737, 02222626432,01122146145
E
–
mail:
mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com
Page
2
of
5
undersigned, so too his colleagues, had to face. So too, nowhere in
the world, a person accused of an offence could have been sentenced
without a charge, without a lawyer, without his presence secured,
without a judgment, nay, a judgment being autho
red after the
execution of the sentence. Justice Karnan’s case could be the sole
exception. The undersigned do not intent to be critical of anyone. The
Contempt of Courts Act as of today has meant the freedom to dissent,
a mirage. All, the undersigned
can express and intent to express is
the pain and agony, for which no words be adequate.
3.
Justice C. S. Karnan was sentenced on 09
.
05
.
2017, in gross
violation of law. He sought to recall the order through the
undersigned. He also instituted a substantive petition under Article 32
in challenge of the Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971. But the Registrar
rejected it, assuming himself to be inves
ted with the jurisdiction of the
court. Since the judgment was yet to be authored, at least, not
pronounced, not even uploaded in the website, he sought suspense of
the sentence and enlargement on bail. The undersigned mentioned at
least twice during the s
ummer vacation, pleading that the application
for bail be listed. Justice C. S.
Karnan had indeed been arrested
on
20.06.2017.
4.
The judgment was eventually uploaded on 05.07.2017. There
were two separate judgments, though concurring. The judgment of
the Ho
n’ble Mr. Justice Jasti Chelameswar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice
Ranjan Gogoi, dated 04.07.2017, which meant that Justice C. S.
Karnan was sentenced without a judgment. Justice C. S. Karnan
accordingly preferred an application for review, which the undersigned
as his lawyer prepared in no loss of time. The undersigned, along with
Shri. B. K. Adhikary, advocate, called on Justice C.S.Karnan on
08
.
07
.
2017 at the Presidency Jail at Kolkata. The review petiti
on was
duly executed by Justice
C.S.Karnan
. His signature was identified and
attested by the jail authorities. The undersigned came to New Delhi on
11.07.2017 to present the same petition at the filing counter along
Page
3
of
5
with Shri. A. C. Philip, advocate, and Shri. Sonu Beniwal, the
registered clerk. T
he clerk at the registering counter accepted the
review petition and assured to give the registration number, the very
next morning. He was polite and courteous. He even assured that he
will inform the registration number over the phone, since the
undersig
ned insisted the inability to come to the counter on the very
next morning. However, what transpired thereafter can have no
parallel
s
in judicial history. The clerk of the undersigned, Shri. Sonu
Beniwal received a call from the registry on the next day
around at
03:00 PM, requesting him to come to the filing counter which he
promptly did. He was told that the review petition contains the
signatures of more than one advocate and therefore it is returned. The
clerk, at the best a matriculate, without a tho
ught readily took back
the review petition and brought the same to the undersigned. The
undersigned along with Shri. A. C. Philip went and met, Mr. P.K. Bajaj,
Addl. Registrar, who responded, ‘you can do anything you want, but I
am not going to accept it.
You go to anybody, I am not bothered’.
5.
Accordingly the undersigned along with Shri. A. C. Philip went in
search of the Registrar who was not in his office. He was busy in a
meeting at the new lawyers launch at the ground floor. On the
backdrop of the said
meeting Shri. Kapil Kumar Mehta, Registrar,
Supreme Court of India, courteous and polite requested the
undersigned to meet him in his chambers on the next morning. Since
the undersigned had to rush to Kerala, his native place, his associate,
Shri.A.C.Phili
p met him. However, surprisingly, the registrar whom
Shri.A.C. Philip met on 13.07.2017 was not the same registrar whom
we had met on the previous day! He was no longer polite or receptive.
In a stern tone, he told that he will not accept it. Shri. A. C. P
hilip,
advocate tried his best to persuade him and also brought to his
notice that the undersigned so too him have presented the review
petition at the filing counter upon due authorization of Justice
C.S.Karnan along with the Vakalathnama, so too the a
uthorisation
letter and also that, the registry is duty bound to take on record the
Page
4
of
5
review petition which the counter clerk indeed did on 11/07/2017,
register it and list it as per the rules. He further pointed out that if the
review petition is defective
in any manner, the registry is duty bound
to notify the defects in writing to the lawyer who represented him
,
allowing him to cure the defects, if any, as per the Rules
.
Shri.A.C.Philip had carried with him the Supreme Court Rules. And he
drew his attentio
n to Order
–
XII, Rule
–
1 & 5 and Order
–
VIII Rule 5 &
6
–
of the Supreme Court Rules,2013. However no amount of reason,
argument or logic, the undersigned is afraid to say, could convince the
registrar. Shri.A.C.Philip, the associate of the undersigned, dete
rmined
as he was, took the stand that he will not return unless the registry
registers even as defective and notify the objections. Finally the Ld.
Registrar instructed a clerk to return it with an endorsement. Finally,
to be reminded of the words of Horac
e that, “parturient montes,
nascetur ridiculus mus”
–
mountains will be in labour, and an absurd
mouse will be born, the clerk wrote thus: ”In view of clause c of rule 7
of Order IV of SCR petition is not accepted..sd/
–
. (13/07/2017) Sr
Court Asstt.”
6.
In ot
her words, the review petition of Justice C.S.Karnan was
returned, without it being registered, without it being scrutinised, it’s
objections if any not notified; it being confined to the grave, without it
ever being listed for hearing and the grave injust
ice done to him ever
rectified.
7.
The right to institute a review petition is a right guaranteed
under
A
rticle 137 of the constitution. It is unfathomable that it has
happened at the hands of the Supreme Court of India, the sentinel qui
vive of the life and
liberty, the very guardian of the constitution.
8.
To err is human; the Ld. Registrar, Shri. Kapil Kumar Mehta, so
too the subordinate staff, in particular Mr. P.K. Bajaj, Addl. Registrar
has erred gravely in the discharge of their function. However it coul
d
be corrected and it ought to be corrected, otherwise the very concept
Page
5
of
5
of rule of law has no meaning. In that case, the very constitution of
India really does not exist.
9.
It is the unstinted faith of Justice C.S.Karnan that the
representation at his behe
st by the undersigned as his lawyer
s
will be
placed by Your Excellency’s Secretary for your kind perusal. Your
Excellency being a lawyer for more than half a century, an AoR of the
Supreme Court of India, will be shocked by the injustice done to
J
ustice
C.
S.Karnan and more than that the flagrant violation of the
constitutional provisions by none other than the inst
itu
tion of Supreme
Court, the very protector of the constitution and the law. I part with
the unstinted faith that Your Excellency will exercise
the powers
invested in your kind self under Article 72 of the Constitution of
India
and remit the sentence of Justice C.S.Karnan or will suspend the
sentence pending the hearing of the application for reca
ll/review of the
orders of the
Supreme Court of Ind
ia dated 09
.
0
5
.
2017 and
04
.
07
.
2017.
With utmost respect and regards
,
Yours sincerely,
New Delhi
2
5.07.2017
(Mathews J.Nedumpara)
(B.K.Adhikary)
(
A.C.Philip
)
&
(C.J.Joveson)
Advocates for the petitioner
Progeny Judges’ Chart- Supreme Court of India
May 31, 2024
More News
-
Cordial relations between Bar and Bench and the Judge’s Disease
January 10, 2022 -
National Borrowers’ Association
August 12, 2019
About Us
Our Supreme Court is termed as the most powerful court on the planet by the so-called eminent jurists. Even the ordinary civil courts can declare an Act of Parliament to be unconstitutional, though the power is not used in actual practice.
Latest Posts
© 2023 National Lawyers Campaign. All Rights Reserved. Designed by Amavi Digital