Sabharwal case: Judgment holding 'Midday' journalists guilty of contempt

[Anuj Bhuwania]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CONTEMPT CAS. (CRIMINAL) NO.7 OF 2007

Reserved on : August
20, 2007

11.09.2007

Date of Decision: September 11, 2007

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION
Through: Mr. Ashok Bhasin, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Yogesh Chandra and Mr. A.K.
Shan,
Advocates.

versus
$ M.K. TAYAL and ORS. ............
Contemnors
Through: Mr. Shanti Bhushan, Sr. Advocate
with
Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Mr. Ankit
Kumar Mehta and Mr. Rohit Kumar
Singh, Advocates.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. SODHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. CHATURVEDI

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment? [YES]
2.To be referred to the Reporter or not? [YES]
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? [YES]

J U D G M E N T
R.S. SODHI, J.

1. On 21.5.2007, a Senior Advocate of this Court, Sh. R.K. Anand,
placed before us a copy of the Newspaper ?Mid Day? dated 18.5.2007 (Friday) in
which he alleged that a scandalous article maligning the former Chief Justice of
India and tending to lower the image of the judiciary in the eyes of common man
has been published. The Newspaper was placed before us and we, on going through
the news item, were prima facie of the view that the publication did tend to
lower the image of the judiciary in the eyes of public. Consequently, we issued
show cause notice to Sh. M.K. Tayal, Editor, Mid Day, Mr. Vitusha Oberoi and Mr.
S.K. Akhtar, its Printer and Publisher.

2. On 25.5.2007, Sh. R.K. Anand, learned Senior Advocate filed yet
another copy of the Newspaper ?Mid Day? dated 19.5.2007 which carried a cartoon
by Mr. Md. Irfaan Khan, Cartoonist. The cartoon depicted the former Chief
Justice of India in his robes holding a bag with currency flowing out. It also
depicted a man sitting on the side walk saying ?Help The mall is in your court?


which we thought was also aimed at lowering the image of the judiciary.
Consequently, we issued show cause notice to Mr. Md. Irfaan Khan also.

3. Upon notice being served, the contemnors have filed their
affidavits in which they have taken up a defence that sons of the former Chief
Justice of India have benefited by orders made by the Supreme Court and that
they were operating their businesses from the official residence of Justice Y.K.
Sabharwal. They claimed that whatever has been stated in the publications is
the truth which, according to them, is a permissible defence.
4. We have carefully gone through the affidavits filed by the
contemnors and have heard extensive arguments advanced by Mr. Shanti Bhushan,
learned Senior Advocate. It is contended before us that the attack in the Press
is focused on the Ex-Chief Justice of India at a time when he has ceased to be
in office and therefore, cannot be termed as denigrating the authority of the
Supreme Court. It is contended that propriety demanded that the Chief Justice
of India ought not to have been on the Bench which passed orders concerning
sealing of properties where non-conforming activities were going on and further
that it is the duty of a journalist to expose the corruption in the judiciary at
the highest level. He also contends that the material on record is ample proof
of the fact that the sons of the former Chief Justice of India were
beneficiaries of sealing of commercial premises. Learned counsel further
contends that he is not challenging the correctness of the order of the Supreme
Court but the order of former Chief Justice of India, who was presiding member
of the Bench and who by his impropriety passed orders sealing premises in which
commercial activities were being conducted in Delhi in order to benefit his
sons' business.

5. We have carefully gone through the articles published as also
the cartoon. We find the manner in which the entire incidence has been
projected appears as if the Supreme Court permitted itself to be led into
fulfilling an ulterior motive of one of its members. The nature of the
revelations and the context in which they appear, though purporting to single
out former Chief Justice of India, tarnishes the image of the Supreme Court. It
tends to erode the confidence of the general public in the institution itself.
The Supreme Court sits in divisions and every order is of a Bench. By imputing
motive to its presiding member automatically sends a signal that the other
members were dummies or were party to fulfill the ulterior design. This we find
most disturbing. There is sufficient case law on the subject and we need hardly
add any further material to it. Suffice it to say, the Supreme Court in Haridas
Das Vs. Smt. Usha Rani Banik and Ors.; Civil Appeal No.7948 of 2004, has clearly
laid down the 'Laxman rekha' which we feel the publications have crossed. The
publications in the garb of scandalizing a retired Chief Justice of India have,
in fact, attacked the very institution which, according to us, is nothing short
of contempt. We, therefore, hold Mr. M.K. Tayal, Editor Mid Day, Mr. S.K.
Akhtar, Publisher, Mrs. Vitusha Oberoi, Resident Editor and Mr. Md. Irfaan Khan,
the Cartoonist, guilty of contempt of court. The matter to be listed on
September 21, 2007, when the contemnors shall be present to be heard on the
question of sentence.


Sd/-
[R.S. SODHI]

JUDGE

Sd/-
[B.N. CHATURVEDI]

JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 11, 2007
'AA'

For related news items see:

http://www.thehindu.com/2007/09/12/stories/2007091262671700.htm

http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=502924
_______________________________________________
commons-law mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law