Bordering disaster

Bordering disaster M K Tayal 18 Mar 2008 It is possible to cross over into neighbouring Myanmar, buy a few odds and ends from the friendly locals, and return to India without a passport or a visa. This land is no barrier: This Myanmar border post at Pangsu Pass is an open house as Burmese people leave their country and enter India without valid documents to make daily purchases. Militants also use the route to cross over at will PIC/M K TAYAL mid-day.com

Mid-Day journalists behind the bars for contempt of court

Mid-Day journalists behind the bars for contempt of court New Delhi, Sat, 22 Sep 2007 http://newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/964 High Court sentenced four months jail term to two journalists, one publisher and one cartoonist of Mid-Day daily for Court found them guilty of contempt of court on September 11 and had fixed the date for announcement of quantum of the punishment till September 21. In May 19 th edition of Mid-Day daily, a report appeared which said that Justice YK Sabharwal, in the capacity of CJI passed judgements on the sealing of commercial property in the residential areas which benefited his sons who are partners in Mall developers. The court started the proceedings suo moto Court held that an accusation against the former CJI amounts to the contempt of court as it tears the image of judiciary as a whole. As counsel of the journalists, former law minister, MR. Shanti Bhushan rejected the offer for argument on the quantum of the punishment and maintained that journalists presented the truth and truth is and explicit defence under the contempt of Courts Act”. This is to be known that after the amendment was effected to the Contempt of Court Act 1971 in 2006 truth is recognized as a valid defence in any case of contempt of Court. A bench comprising Justice Sodhi and Justice B N Chaturvadi said, “As they neither seek an apology nor do they opt to argue and reiterate their stand which has tarnished the image of the highest court, a four month imprisonment would serve the ends of justice”. The Bench said that the publications actually attacked the very institution which is nothing short of contempt. The bench also rejected the argument that after retirement the judge ceased to be a part of the judicial system and writing against him does not tantamount to the contempt of court and held that the nature of the disclosures though quoting the former CJI hurts the image of the Highest Court of the land. All four of the convicted Vitusha Oberoi, MK Tayal, S K Akhtar and Irfan Khan have been released on bail on a personal bond of Rs.10,000. Journalists demonstrated in the premises of the court protesting the proceeding against them. The Editor’s Guild of India is scheduled to meet next month to discuss the issue of the amendment of the contempt of court law. Several papers have come in the defence of the journalists and held the proceedings by the court as ‘contempt for pen’ and ‘contempt for democracy’. Reporters without Borders http://archives.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=23733 21 September 2007 Four journalists get jail terms for contempt of court Reporters Without Borders voiced outrage at a New Delhi court decision today to sentence the publisher of the Mid-Day newspaper and three of his employees - two editors and a cartoonist - to four months in prison for contempt of court because they accused a former senior judge of issuing a ruling that benefited his son. "While judges have a right to defend themselves before the courts, but there is no reason for them to abuse laws, such as the contempt of court law, to punish journalists who make embarrassing revelations," the press freedom organisation said. "This ruling is a step backwards that weakens press independence and threatens investigative journalism," Reporters Without Borders added. "We call for the highest judicial authorities to intervene so that these jail terms for Mid-Day’s journalists are not upheld on appeal." The offending report in Mid-Day claimed that former senior judge Y. K. Sabharwal benefited his son’s company by authorising the demolition of buildings. The four journalists - S. K. Akhtar, Vitsha Oberoi, Irfan Khan and M. K. Tayal - were released on bail pending the outcome of an appeal. The Editors Guild of India said the prison sentences were a threat to press freedom. Daily Times, Pakistan Saturday, September 22, 2007 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C09%5C22%5Cstory_22-9-2007_pg4_16 4 journalists jailed in India for criticising judge NEW DELHI: A New Delhi court sentenced four journalists Friday to four months in prison for contempt of court after they criticized a former chief justice in print, a verdict slammed by critics as an assault on India’s press freedom. The court said the four - two editors, a cartoonist and a publisher of the New Delhi-based Mid-Day newspaper - had tarnished the image of the court by alleging in their articles that former Chief Justice of India YK Sabharwal had ruled on the demolition of unauthorized buildings to benefit his sons’ business interests. “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,” RS Sodhi and BN Chaturvedi of the New Delhi High Court said in the ruling. “We didn’t intend to malign the judiciary,” said MK Tayal, the paper’s city editor and one of the four sentenced Friday. He told reporters outside the court that the newspaper stood by its story and it would appeal to the Supreme Court. The articles alleged that Sabharwal’s ordering of the demolition of scores of unauthorized commercial buildings in New Delhi helped his sons and their business partner - builders of shopping malls in the city. ap http://www.southasiatimes.com.au/news/?p=323 SC stays sentence against Mid Day scribes Sep. 28 South Asia Comments Off New Delhi: The Supreme Court today stayed the four months sentence imposed on four journalists of Mid Day for their alleged contemptuous reports against the former Chief Justice of India Y K Sabharwal. A bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and P Sathasivam admitted the appeal filed by the daily against the September 21 conviction imposed by the Delhi High Court. The apex court, however, rejected the impleadment application moved by 27 prominent citizens seeking an opportunity to be heard in the matter. The apex court, while rejecting the intervention application, asserted that the applicants had no locus standi as the question was restricted to whether the journalists had committed contempt or not. The bench announced that it was appointing senior counsel and former Additional Solicitor General A R Andhiarjuna to act as amicus curiae in the matter. Twenty-seven prominent citizens had yesterday moved the Supreme Court pleading they be meted out the same punishment that might be awarded to the four Mid Day journalists for their alleged scandalous reports against the former Chief Justice of India Y K Sabharawal. According to the applicants, the conviction of the four journalists was not only an assault on the freedom of speech but would also send a wrong signal to the people. The petition had claimed that the stand taken by the High Court was “erroneous and antithetical to the fundamental principles of our republican democracy and our Constitution.” In their application, they had prayed “mete out the same punishment to the applicants as will be meted out to the Mid Day journalists”. The signatories to the application included Magsaysay awardee Arvind Kejariwal, former civil servant Harsh Mander, retired IPS officer K S Subramaniam, former bureaucrat S P Shukla, Amit Bhaduri, Prof Arun Kumar and others. On September 19, the Supreme Court had refused to stay the contempt proceedings initiated by the Delhi High Court against four senior journalists of city daily Mid Day for publishing articles against the former Chief Justice of India. The High Court on September 11, had found M K Tayal, S K Akhtar (the then Publisher), Vitusha Oberoi (Editor) and Irfan (cartoonist) guilty of contempt of court. In their special leave petition filed before the apex court against their conviction, the journalists had submitted that the High Court’s order was “unreasonable” and “unjustified” and the tabloid had published the article on the basis of documentary evidence. They had also attached clippings of the newspaper in which some former chief justices had opined that there should be judicial probe into the allegations against the former Chief Justice Sabharwal. The controversial article published on May 18 alleged that Justice Sabharwal’s order on the sealing issue had been passed for the benefit of his sons who were engaged in real estate business. - PTI (Sept.28,2007)

SC stays conviction of Mid-Day scribes, admits appeal

Rediff.com Last updated on: September 28, 2007 12:35 IST http://www.rediff.com/news/report/mid/20070928.htm The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the arrest of four journalists of Mid-Day sentenced to four months imprisonment for their alleged scandalous reports against the former Chief Justice of India Y K Sabharwal. A Bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and P Sathasivam also admitted the appeal filed by the daily, challenging the conviction imposed by the Delhi high court on September 21. The apex court, however, rejected the impleadment application moved by 27 prominent citizens who wanted to be heard in the matter. The apex court, while rejecting the intervention application, asserted that the applicants had no locus standi as the question was restricted to whether the journalists had committed contempt or not. While admitting the appeal, the apex court said, it was appointing senior counsel and former additional solicitor general A R Andhiarjuna as amicus curiae in the matter. Twenty-seven prominent citizens had on Thursday moved the Supreme Court pleading they be meted out the same punishment that might be awarded to the four Mid-Day journalists for their alleged scandalous reports against the former chief justice of India Y K Sabharwal. According to the applicants, the conviction of the four journalists was not only an assault on the freedom of speech, but would also send a wrong signal to the people. The petition had claimed that the stand taken by the high court was "erroneous and antithetical to the fundamental principles of our republican democracy and our Constitution." In their application, they had prayed "mete out the same punishment to the applicants as will be meted out to the Mid-Day journalists." The signatories to the application included Magsaysay awardee Arvind Kejariwal, former civil servant Harsh Mander, retired IPS officer K S Subramaniam, former bureaucrat S P Shukla, Amit Bhaduri, Prof Arun Kumar and others. On September 19, the Supreme Court had refused to stay the contempt proceedings initiated by the Delhi high court against four senior journalists of city daily Mid-Day for publishing articles against the former chief justice of India. The high court on September 11, had found editor of Mid-Day M K Tayal, S K Akhtar (the then publisher), Vitusha Oberoi (resident editor) and Irfan (cartoonist) guilty of contempt of court. In their special leave petition filed before the apex court against their conviction, the journalists had submitted that the high court's order was "unreasonable" and "unjustified" and the tabloid had published the article on the basis of documentary evidence. They had also attached clippings of the newspaper in which some former chief justices had opined that there should be judicial probe into the allegations labelled against the former chief justice Sabharwal. The controversial article published on May 18 alleged that Justice Sabharwal's order on the sealing issue had been passed for the benefit of his sons who were engaged in the real estate business.

Former Chief Justice YK Sabharwal gets Prime Property in Delhi- Judicial Scam

Former Chief Justice YK Sabharwal gets Prime Property in Delhi- Judicial Scam AUGUST 25, 2010 2 COMMENTS Ex-CJIs sons get prime property in Delhi,but they never bid for it Manoj Mitta | TNN Times of India but found @ http://devapriyaji.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/former-chief-justice-yk-sabharwal-gets-prime-property-in-delhi-judicial-scam/ New Delhi: The two sons of the former Chief Justice of India,YK Sabharwal,under probe for their business deals,suddenly came to buy a Rs 122 crore property here four months ago,thanks to controversial orders passed by the Delhi high court. Chetan and Nitin Sabharwal,with partner Kabul Chawla,chief of real estate company BPTP,turned out to be the ultimate beneficiaries of HC orders passed since 2006 in connection with the auction of the 2.7-acre property at 7 Sikandra Road. An appeal challenging the April 2010 sale deed revealed they had not participated in an auction in September 2006,in which a twojudge bench declared Triveni Infrastructure the highest bidder.Triveni was required to pay 25% of its bid amount,Rs 117 crore,within a week and the rest in three weeks,subject to the property being converted from leasehold to freehold. But Triveni became liable to pay the 75% component only in February 2009 as it took so long for the property to be converted to freehold.It was then that a succession of single-judge orders resulted in the payment being made,with a Rs 5 crore penalty,in April 2010,that too by the two Sabharwals and Chawla although they had no formal stake in Triveni. Ex-CJIs sons didnt take part in auction,yet acquired property New Delhi: An appeal challenging the April 2010 sale deed revealed that the three partners,including the two sons of former CJI Y K Sabharwal,had not participated in an auction in September 2006 on which a two-judge bench declared Triveni Infrastructure the highest bidder. The appeal being heard by a special bench,headed by Justice A K Sikri,shed light on the various ways in which the 2006 order had been bypassed,particularly by Justice Manmohan Singh,leading to a windfall for the Sabharwal brothers and Chawla: When the owners of the property filed a contempt application against Triveni for its failure to pay the balance in February 2009,Justice Manmohan Singh gave more time to the defaulter directing that it would have to pay Rs 3 crore by July-end and Rs 85 crore by October-end.Later,he extended the time further to Decemberend with a penalty of Rs 5 crore. The repeated extension of the deadline by Justice Manmohan Singh was contrary to the division benchs direction that if the highest bidder failed to make the payments on time,the property would have to be sold to the next highest bidder,Prime Commercial. In June 2009,Justice Manmohan Singh allowed a four-day old company,Angle Infrastructure,to come in place of Triveni for paying the balance and to take over the property.The owners of the property appealed against this order as it had been passed without any notice to them. A week before the expiry of the December 2009 deadline,Justice Manmohan Singh gave a fresh extension to Angle,this time by five months.He also granted Angles request to introduce the condition that it would be required to pay the balance only when the owners were in a position to deliver immediate possession of the property.Most of the owners challenged this order,again because it had been passed without any notice to them. A month before the expiry of the May 2010 deadline,Triveni and Angle filed a joint application requesting that the balance be allowed to be paid by the Sabharwals and Chawla and that the property be registered in their names.Since the Sabharwal brothers and Chawla appeared in the court with demand drafts of the balance amount,Justice Rajiv Shakdher directed the owners on April 20 to execute the sale deed within two days. That is how the Sabharwal brothers and Chawla acquired the property from an auction in which they had not participated at all. FILED UNDER 1 2 Responses to Former Chief Justice YK Sabharwal gets Prime Property in Delhi- Judicial Scam தேவப்ரியாஜி says: August 25, 2010 at 2:15 am Allegations of Real Estate Operations by his sons During the 2006 Delhi sealing drive, the Supreme Court under Sabharwal demonstrated extraordinary zeal in demolishing a slarge number of commercial properties which were illegally running in residential areas. There were very extensive protests every day, and considerable political pressure, due to which demolitions would often be hindered. The court monitored events and regularly reprimanded the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for its tardy progress. As a consequence of the extensive bulldozing of buildings, legal commercial properties, as in the new shopping malls, rose dramatically in price[3]. Particularly, luxury store owners and other upscale businesses were very keen to get into the limited mall floor space. In May 2007, five months after Sabharwal retired from the bench, the afternoon newspaper Mid-Day brought out a series of articles that presented documents showing that YK Sabharwal’s sons, Chetan and Nitin Sabharwal, owned at least four small ventures, most of them oriented towards garment exports, but one in the construction arena. During Sabharwal’s tenure as Chief justice, two of these firms suddenly attracted the interest of the very largest players in the shopping mall industry. The first firm, Pawan Impex, Pvt Ltd, was registered for some time at Justice Sabharwal’s official bungalow in the heart of Delhi, and later at his private house. Having the firm registered at his government-furnished house may have been illegal[4]. In a newspaper editorial on Sept 2, 2007, Justice Sabharwal has said that he asked his sons to shift the registered address as soon as he found out about it[5], but in an interview recorded by Mid-Day in April 2007, after the shift, he claims complete ignorance about the matter[4]. More damaging is the fact that Pawan Impex, which had remained with a capitalization of 0.1 million Rs. since its founding in 2002, suddenly attracted the interest of Kabul and Anjali Chawla, owners of the large and rapidly growing real estate firm Business Park Town Planners (BPTP)[6] which had promoted large malls like Park Centra (Gurgaon), Next Door (Faridabad), and the Parklands Shop-In Park (North Delhi). In June 2006, at the peak of the Supreme Court interest in the 2006 Delhi sealing drive, the Chawla’s invested in Park Impex, raising the Share Capital 300 fold to Rs. 30 million, with equal shares between the original promoters and the Chawlas[7][8]. Two months later, in August, the company obtained a loan of Rs. 280 million by a bank which happens to be a tenant of a BPTP property. These allegations appear to be well documented in a set of papers released by the Campaign for Judicial Accountability[9] and were not addressed in Justice Sabharwal’s public response[5], though he did mention that his sons were creating an IT Mall. After the partnership with BPTP in June 2007 Pawan Impex purchased 4 acres (16,000 m2) of land in NOIDA on which this IT Mall is being constructed; Mid-Day reports it to be a Rs. 560 million project with 300,000 sq ft (28,000 m2). saleable floor area[2]. A second firm, Harpawan Constructors, equally unknown, had also been promoted by the brothers. In October 2005, the promoters of Filatex India, a polyester yarn firm with a turnover of Rs. 3 billion in FY 2007, Purshottam and Madhu Sudan Bhageria, also the owners of real estate firm Fargo Estates, invested in Harpawan. Subsequently, the Bhagerias announced plans for developing the Square One, a mall devoted to luxury brands in Delhi. Justice Sabharwal has said that Purshottam Bhageria was his son’s childhood friend, and that Harparwan Construction, despite its name, has not made any real estate or other investments[5]. The business of Chetan and Nitin expanded dramatically after 2005. Besides setting up several garment manufacturing factories, they have embarked on a massive real estate programme in NOIDA. Possibly the largest project for Pawan Impex is the Rs. 560 million IT Mall being constructed in Noida. In the application to construct this mall, they had given the turnover and business of their company as “Nil”. Their application for constructing this mall was approved rather mysteriously, given that in the application they had declared their company to be “Nil turnover” and “Nil business”[4]. An earlier applicant, Softedge Solutions, had been rejected on the ground that they could not satisfactorily answer questions about their previous experience in IT and their technical tie up. But Pawan Impex represented by Chetan Sabharwal with Nil business, no previous track record in IT and no technical tie up, managed to obtain permission. [4] [edit]Conflict of Interest charges Whatever the facts of the case, it is widely felt that Justice Sabharwal’s being active in such decisions when his sons were even partly involved in the Delhi real estate business lacked propriety, and that he should have recused himself from these cases. To the contrary, the Outlook (magazine) printed a report claiming that he had “called for and dealt with the sealing of commercial property cases in March 2005, though it was not assigned to him.”[4]. The actions have been condemned as being at best improper and at worst an attempt “to benefit his sons who entered into partnerships with shopping malls and developers of commercial complexes”[10]. Former Solicitor General KK Sud called this behaviour “the height of indiscretion.”[11] In terms of the content of the charges, the most damaging aspect is the participation of the shopping mall construction giant BPTP in his son’s export-import business. Both the Chawla’s were on the board of the firm by early 2005, around the same time that Sabharwal started taking interest in the demolition drive. What is surprising is that while Justice Sabharwal in his justification[5] addresses the other two (lesser) charges in some detail, but he is completely silent about the BPTP connection. [edit]Jail term for two Journalists, cartoonist, publisher In September 2007, four Mid-Day journalists were sentenced to prison by the Delhi High Court for contempt of court (making such allegations about an ex-judge)[12]. The scribes said: “We stated facts in our stories. (in the articles relating to former Chief Justice of India Y K Sabharwal) and that is why we should not be hauled up for contempt. The laws in the country are outdated.” The contempt laws in India do not rely on truth as the primary test for judging contempt. The columns were also somewhat tongue-in-cheek, accompanied also by a cartoon (the cartoonist has also been sentenced to four months in jail). Justice R S Sodhi and Justice B N Chaturvedi of the Delhi High Court, in their judgement, said: “We feel, in this peculiar case, the contemnors have tarnished the image of the highest court and the sentence of four months’ imprisonment would serve the justice.” M K Tayal, senior journalist, said, “The judges did not go into the merits of the argument. They did not apply their minds while delivering the judgement.”[13]. “The Supreme Court in its judgement has clearly laid down the Laxman Rekha which we feel the publications have crossed.” (The Laxman Rekha is a Ramayanic reference to a line that should not be crossed). However, the defendants had already processed their bail requests from the Supreme Court, and they were immediately released on bail. Tayal and three others are no more associated with Mid Day. It appears that the management of the newspaper compromised with Sabharwal and BPTP. Tayal, a former Indian army officer, objected Mid Day’s policy of refraining from exposing more about the dealings of ex-CJI. Mid Day’s MD Tariq Answari had written a note regarding the newspaper not carrying any more article on Sabharwal. About the judgement, ex-law minister Shanti Bhushan stated that Parliament had in 2006 amended the Contempt of Courts Act to say that “if the allegations against a judge were found to be true, then they would not be considered contemptuous”. In view of this, the judgement, he said, may be “only aimed at terrifying the media and an attempt to curb truthfulness.”[10] In any event, the decision of four months imprisonment for the reporters, without establishing the falsity of the reportage, has only brought the matter into far more intense public scrutiny. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogesh_Kumar_Sabharwal தேவப்ரியாஜி says: August 25, 2010 at 2:25 am Vice-president asks govt to probe ex-CJI’s assets http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/108972/India/vicepresident-asks-govt-to-probe-excjis-assets.html Vice-president Mohammad Hamid Ansari has asked the Union home ministry to look into a complaint that seeks an investigation into assets of former Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan. Balakrishnan was appointed National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) chairman after he retired from the CJI’s post on May 12, 2010. On June 21, this year, the Vice-President’s secretariat under secretary Mahitab Singh wrote a letter to home secretary G.K. Pillai, saying: “I am directed to forward herewith the representation dated 5th May, 2010 of Dr M. Furquan… regarding investigation of assets of former CJI, addressed to the Hon’ble Vice-President of India for your appropriate attention. “Commenting on the complaint, Balakrishnan said: “Whatever property and assets I have are well declared. Nothing is there for me to hide.” In a five-page complaint to the Vice-President, Furquan, a Delhi-based journalist, sought a CBI investigation against Balakrishnan and his family ” for finding out how much financial assets they have (allegedly) accumulated since he took over as the CJI”. Furquan claimed that the assets declared by Balakrishnan is “far below the actual assets he and his family now own”. According to Balakrishnan’s asset declaration put up on the Supreme Court website along with those of other judges, he owns two houses and agricultural land in his native Kerala, a residential plot worth Rs 4.50 lakh in Faridabad and family property valued at Rs 3.5 lakh. His wife Nirmala also has land in Kerala. Other than this, he also said the family owned 20 sovereigns of gold jewellery and a 2000- model Santro car. A vice-president’s office source confirmed the representation was forwarded to the home ministry for appropriate action, but said: ” We are still to get an acknowledgement from them (the home ministry)”. However, the Ministry of Home Affairs officials refused to comment on the letter seeking possible action against Balakrishnan. Additional secretary Dileep Raj S. Chaudhary, who was appointed as MHA spokesperson in July, refused to give the status of the complaint despite the fact that he was shown the V-P office letter referred to the Union home secretary on Thursday. “I’m not expected to chase any information which a journalist brings,” Chaudhary, a 1977-batch Madhya Pradesh cadre IAS officer, said. The home secretary was also not available for comment despite a request made to his North Block office on Thursday. Furquan’s letter to the V-P contains serious allegations against the former CJI and his family members. At present two committees constituted by Ansari, who is also the chairman of the Rajya Sabha, are holding impeachment proceedings against Calcutta High Court judge Soumitra Sen and Sikkim high court chief justice Paul Daniel Dinakaran. Though previous chief justices such as Madan Mohan Punchi, A. S. Anand, Y. K. Sabharwal have courted controversy, the V- P’s move for a possible inquiry against Balakrishnan comes in the backdrop of a Bill pending in Parliament on making judges more accountable. The present form of the draft Bill states that a complaint against a judge should be referred to the V- P. The Bill lays down the procedure for initiating punitive action against Supreme Court and high court judges since as of now they can only be impeached, which seldom happens as it is a cumbersome and lengthy process. In July 2009, the Supreme Court had dismissed a petition questioning Balakrishnan’s appointment on the grounds that he did not fulfill the criteria laid down in the Constitution for the appointment of high court judges. A two- member bench headed by Justice R. V. Raveendran did not entertain the petition filed by Kerala lawyer P. A. Chandran on the grounds that it was filed after 24 years.

Gujaratis are not martial enough: Army

Gujaratis are not martial enough: Army By: M K Tayal (Mid Day) February 12, 2004 http://www.indiarightsonline.com/Sabrang/relipolcom14.nsf/ec17764ea99fc75a65256aa6004ea2f7/24516f7d4aa1728665256e3a00268bc5?OpenDocument New Delhi: The Indian Army has politely but firmly rejected Deputy Prime Minister L K Advani's request for raising a Gujarat regiment. There are two reasons for this refusal. One, the army already has 23 regiments and sees little logic in expansion on the basis of caste and community considerations, though it admits to facing a shortage of ground troops. The other reason, that army officials cite only strictly off the record, is that "Gujaratis, unlike some other Indian groups, are not a martial race but mainly businessmen." Army sources said Gujaratis in the army are known for their high rate of "desertions and AWOL (absence without leave)". Also, according to army officials, those Gujaratis who do not desert early usually seek retirement after completing the 15 to 18-year mandatory period that entitles a service man to benefits. "Most seek retirement at the earliest to enjoy re-employment benefits provided by the state governments and the private sector. At the same time, they enjoy an ex-serviceman's benefits," said an official. According to reports, Advani made a promise to raise a Gujarat regiment during a recent visit to his Gandhinagar constituency. Army officials feel the statement was a political gimmick. "In any case, suggestions should have been sought from the army before making any such promises," officials pointed out. Officials said that despite the need for ground troops, the army currently had no plans to raise a new regiment or even a unit (battalion), leave alone one from Gujarat. The last time infantry units were raised by the army was in Jammu & Kashmir in 1990. Called the Rashtriya Rifles, the units were raised mainly to conduct counter-terrorist operations. The British had, during their rule, raised regiments in the Indian Army on the basis of region and caste. The Punjab, Sikh, Rajput and Jat regiments were among the few earliest regiments formed on this principle. Even after Independence, the army continued to raise new regiments on these grounds, with minor changes. In certain cases, for instance, a particular regiment would have troops from two or more communities or regions. However, a large-scale mutiny by soldiers of a Sikh regiment after Operation Blue Star in 1984 forced the army to review its policy. After 1984, the army experimented by raising mixed battalions in each regiment but the move was not successful as the troops wanted a separate identity. In 1999, the army introduced a new system of recruitment through rallies, held in different states and regions. 'No need for regiments based on regions' Former director-general of the Indian infantry and colonel of the Punjab regiment, Lt Gen Shankar Prasad, says the very idea of raising community-based regiments must now be rejected. Excerpts from an interview: Do you think a new regiment should be raised on the basis of region? No, definitely not. The British had their reasons, but there is no need for us to have regiments on the basis of caste, community or region. What about the class composition? We have mixed regiments that have troops from all over India. Now each region/class has an earmarked percentage in the present recruitment process. Each class is well represented in the Indian Army. What about Gujarat? Gujarat is well-represented in the army. They have a fixed percentage in the Maratha, Grenadiers, Guards, Mahar and other regiments. We cannot have 33 regiments based on every state or Union territory. For example, in the Madras regiment, we have troops from Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. But is it true that Gujaratis, considered a business community, don't generally want to join the army? I don't think so. The martial race concept was introduced by the British. The army does not believe in it. What it requires to join the troops is a tenth- standard certificate and prescribed physical standards. In the 33-week-long training that we give, we make sure the recruit becomes martial. But what about the percentage? Yes, that can be raised. But that is another issue.

SC stays sentence of scribes who wrote against ex-CJI

CNN-IBN Sep 28, 2007 at 05:23pm http://ibnlive.in.com/news/sc-stays-sentence-of-scribes-who-wrote-against-excji/49527-3-1.html ew Delhi: The Supreme Court has stayed the sentences of four journalists in a contempt of court case. The apex court, while rejecting the intervention application, asserted that the applicants had no locus standi as the question was restricted to whether the journalists had committed contempt or not. The Supreme Court has stayed the arrests on a petition filed by the journalists. It has appointed senior counsel and former additional solicitor general A R Andhiarjuna as "friend of the court" amicus curiae in the matter. The next date of hearing is in January 2008. The Delhi High Court had sentenced the senior journalists from the Mid-Day newspaper to four months in prison last Friday, after the newpaper published a series of articles in May, criticising former chief justice of India, Y K Sabharwal. The four journalists convicted for the same are Mid-Day City Editor M K Tayal, the then Publisher S K Akhtar, Resident Editor Vitusha Oberoi and cartoonist Irfan Khan. The reports by the journalists claimed Sabharwal ordered the sealing of lakhs of commercial establishments in New Delhi for the benefit of his sons who were involved in real estate business. A High Court Bench had earlier directed the four to furnish a personal bond of Rs 10,000 each and two sureties of the same amount for the bail. All the contemnors, along with some other journalists, were present in the court when the order of sentence was dictated by the Bench. The court, on September 11, had held them guilty, saying that they had crossed the Laxman Rekha. "The publications in the garb of scandalising a retired Chief Justice of India have, in fact, attacked the very institution, which according to us, is nothing short of contempt," the Bench said in its judgement on articles and cartoons that appeared in the newspaper about Sabharwal. "The Supreme Court in its judgement has clearly laid down the Laxman Rekha which we feel the publications have crossed," it said. Taking suo-motu cognisance of the articles published in the city tabloid, which alleged that Justice Sabharwal's order on sealing issue had been passed for the benefit of his sons who were involved in real estate business, the High Court on May 18 had issued notices to its editor, reporter and publisher. It later also issued a notice to the cartoonist of the tabloid for making a 'caricature' of Sabharwal. (With inputs from agencies)

Tribune Sept 21, 2007

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2007/20070922/ Four Mid-Day staffers jailed New Delhi, September 21 Four functionaries of the tabloid Mid-Day, including two journalists, were today awarded four months’ sentence for committing contempt of court by writing a series of articles against former Chief Justice of India Y K Sabharwal relating to the orders passed by a Bench, headed by him, in sealing of commercial ventures in the Capital.

Contempt Of Judicial Power

Outlook SEP 19, 2007 http://www.outlookindia.com/printarticle.aspx?235601 Former Chief Justice of India Y.K. Sabharwal's defence becomes murkier -- rebutting the former CJI's rejoinder, point by painstaking point to show how it ignores or sidesteps the inconvenient and emphasises the irrelevant. PRASHANT BHUSHAN , CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORMS Justice Sabharwal finally broke his silence in a signed piece in the Times of India. His defence proceeds by ignoring and sidestepping the inconvenient and emphasising the irrelevant to evoke sympathy. To examine the adequacy of his defence, we need to see his defence against the gravamen of each charge against him. Charge No. 1 That his son’s companies had shifted their registered offices to his official residence. Justice Sabharwal’s response: That as soon as he came to know he ordered his son’s to shift it back. Our Rejoinder: This is False. In April 2007, in a recorded interview with the Midday reporter M.K. Tayal he feigned total ignorance of the shifting of the offices to his official residence. Copy of the CD containing the said conversation is available as Annexure I. In fact, the registered offices were shifted back from his official residence to his Punjabi Bagh residence exactly on the day that the BPTP mall developers became his sons partners, making it very risky to continue at his official residence. Copies of the document showing the date of induction of Kabul Chawla, the promoter and owner of BPTP in Pawan Impex Pvt. Ltd., one of the companies of Justice Sabharwal’s sons, and Form no. 18 showing the shifting of the registered office from the official residence of Justice Sabharwal to his family residence on 23rd October 2004 are available as Annexure II *** Charge No. 2: That he called for and dealt with the sealing of commercial property case in March 2005, though it was not assigned to him. It is only the Chief Justice who can assign pending cases to various judges. He was not the CJI at that time. Copy of the order dated 17th March 2005 is available as Annexure III. Justice Sabharwal’s response: Justice Sabharwal does not answer this charge. *** Charge No. 3. That he did this exactly around the time that his sons got into partnerships with Mall and commercial complex developers, who stood to benefit from his sealing orders. The chain of events is as follows: On 23rd October 2004, Kabul Chawla, the promoter of one of the biggest developers of shopping malls and commercial complexes, was inducted in Pawan Impex as a 50% shareholder and Director. On 12.02.2005, Kabul Chawla’s wife, Anjali Chawla was also inducted as Director of Pawan Impex. On 17th March 2005, Justice Sabharwal ordered that the case dealing with the sealing of commercial establishments should also be heard along with the writ of M.C. Mehta which was being heard by him. On 8th April 2005, Chetan Sabharwal and Nitin Sabharwal, two sons of Justice Sabharwal, set up another company, Harpawan Constructors, with the object of constructing Commercial complexes. On 25th October 2005, Purshottam Bagheria, one of the big builders on shopping malls and commercial complexes of Delhi was inducted as a partner in Harpwan Construtors. On 16th Februrary 2006, Justice Y. K. Sabharwal, who by that time had become the Chief Justice of India, passed a detailed order in the aforementioned case setting into motion the demolition and sealing in Delhi. Justice Sabharwal’s response: That they were his sons friends. That Harpawan Constructors which was set up by his sons with the Mall developer Purshottam Bagheria did not do any business. In fact the courts under him got Bagheria’s 1 MG road mall demolished. That his sons are not developing shopping malls but only an IT Park. Our Rejoinder: If so many Mall and commercial complex developers were his sons’ close friends, then he should not have dealt with the case anyway since that creates an immediate conflict of interest. Moreover, why should they go into partnership with these developers who stood to benefit from Justice Sabharwal’s orders, and that too exactly at the time when he seizes control of the sealing of commercial property case and starts dealing with it? He says that the company set up by his sons in partnership with Bagheria has not done any business. If so, why was this new company set up for developing commercial complexes in partnership with this builder? In an interview with ZNews Justice Sabhawal claims credit for the judiciary under him ordering the demolition of the illegal 1 MG road mall owned by Bagheria. But then why do his sons enter into partnerships with such an illegal builder whose buildings have had to be demolished by the Judiciary? And immediately after this partnership with the Sabharwals, Bagheria went on to announce the construction of “Square 1 mall” in Saket as the most fashionable mall in India. And all the fashion designers who had their shops and outlets at 1 MG road went on to buy space in the Square I mall. What is important to note here is that Bagheria and his partners at 1 MG road had already parted with all the space on 1 MG road. The demolition thus hurt the designers and others who had bought shops there, but did not hurt Bagheria who may have in fact benefited from it by clearing the land of his tenants and getting them to buy space at his new malls at Saket and elsewhere. An IT park is also a commercial complex like any other. Many commercial establishments sealed were IT centres and BPOs which were forced to buy space in IT parks like that being constructed by his sons and their partners. *** Charge No. 4 That the Union Bank of India gave a loan of 28 crores to his sons’ company Pavan Impex on a collateral of plant and machinery and other moveables at the site of their proposed IT Park, which were non-existent. Justice Sabharwal’s response: That his sons’ had a credit facility of 75 crores. Our Rejoinder: If that were the case, what was the need for mortgaging non-existent assets for obtaining this loan? Moreover, the Banks’ senior manager is on record saying that the loan was given on the basis of projected sales to prospective customers. The conversation with the Bank Manager is in the CD referred to as Annexure I. *** Charge No. 5. That because of the obvious conflict of interest, he could not have dealt with this case. Justice Sabharwal’s response: That his orders have never benefited his sons. Our Rejoinder: His orders of sealing lakhs of commercial properties clearly forced those establishments to buy or rent space in commercial complexes like those that his sons’ company were constructing; and shopping malls etc that their friends and partners were constructing. There was a clear conflict of interest and his orders have clearly benefited his sons and their partners. *** Charge No. 6 That a large number of industrial and commercial plots were allotted in Noida by the UP government to his sons’ companies, at prices far below the market price. In particular several huge plots were allotted between December 2004 and November 2006 by the Mulayam Singh/Amar Singh government, while he was dealing with Amar Singh’s tapes case, and had stayed the publication of those tapes on the behest of Amar Singh. Justice Sabharwal’s response: That some of the plots were allotted by earlier different governments. That the prices were not far below the market price. That the allotments were made in the normal course to his sons who were entrepreneurs and were providing employment to hundreds of people in Noida. Our Rejoinder: Even if one were to look at only the last two allotments of 12,000 metres each made in December 2004 and November 2006, made by the Mulayam Singh/Amar Singh governments, it is obvious that the allotments are definitely not in the normal course. Consider the allotment to Pawan Impex. The company has Nil turnover and Nil business (as declared in their application) on the date of application on 30/12/04. The very next day they receive a letter from Noida Authority asking them to come for an interview within 4 days on 5/11/04. On that day the authority notes that they want 12,000 sq. M in Sector 125 or Sector 132. The minutes note that because the work of development of Sector 125 is not complete and because in sector 132 the plot size available is only up to 11,000 sq metres, the matter is deferred for the next meeting. In the next meeting on 13/12/04, though Sector 125 is still not developed, a decision is taken to allot them a 12,000 Sq. metre plot in Sector 125 for a BPO. All this without a word about how and why a company with nil business is worthy of being allotted one of the largest plots of 12,000 sq. meters. The previous application of M/s Softedge Solutions Pvt. Ltd for an IT park is rejected on the ground that they could not satisfactorily answer questions about their previous experience in IT and their technical tie up. But Pawan Impex represented by Chetan Sabharwal with Nil business, no previous track record in IT and no technical tie up sails through with no questions asked. All in the normal course, of course! Copies of the profit and loss accounts of Pawan Impex Pvt. Ltd. for the year ended 31.03.2003 and 31.03.2004 showing its income nil are available as Annexure IV. Justice Sabharwal says that the allotment price of Rs. 3,700/sq M was not below the market price. The current circle rate in Sector 125 is Rs. 11,000/sq metre and the market price is over Rs. 30,000/sq meter there. Similarly, the huge plot of 3 acres, No. 12 A in Sector 68 alloted to Sabs Exports in November 2006 at a throw away price of Rs. 4000 per square meter is also not in the normal course and was similarly made within days of application and a bogus interview, without any other system. Today, within 10 months of allotment, even the circle rate of plots in Sector 68 is Rs. 8,000 per sq. meter and the market rate is Rs. 20-22,000 per sq. meter. Moreover this allotment has been made at a time when he was dealing with Amar Singh’s tapes case and had stayed the publication of the tapes. *** Charge No. 7 That his sons have purchased a 1150 square meter house in Maharani bagh, New Delhi in March 2007 for a consideration of 15.46 crores. The source of money for this is unexplained and in the sale deed they seek to conceal their relationship with Justice Sabharwal by writing his name as Yogesh Kumar and giving their factory address instead of the residential address. Justice Sabharwal’s response: That 90 percent of the money for the purchase of this house was from four banks; that his sons concealed his full name in the sale deed in order to avoid taking advantage of their association with him. Our Rejoinder: Banks do not normally advance loans of 90% of the value of a property on its security. Otherwise they would end up holding inadequate security if the property prices fall by even 15%. If they have done so in this case, it is either because of an undue favour as in the case of the loan of 28 Crores to Pawan Impex, or they valued the property higher than the declared purchase price. His explanation for concealing his name in the sale deed is hilarious and unbelievable since his sons did not hesitate to use his official residence as the registered office of their companies. Moreover, this was in a registered sale deed with a private party, where there was no occasion for taking any advantage by using his name. *** It is therefore clear that Justice Sabharwal is guilty of serious judicial misconduct and appears to be prima facie guilty of offences under the prevention of Corruption Act which need to be investigated. It is also significant that highly respected former Judges of Supreme Court of India like Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, Justice P. B. Sawant, Justice J.S. Verma etc. have all called for a thorough investigation into this matter. This is imperative and could be done by a panel of retired Judges and other eminent members of civil society. We call upon the Chief Justice of India to constitute such an inquiry panel and request Justice Sabharwal to co-operate with it. Silencing exposure of judicial corruption by contempt: Meanwhile the Delhi High Court has held the staff of Mid Day guilty of contempt of Court for publishing some of the above allegations in their newspaper in May this year. This is despite the fact that they had pleaded that the allegations were all true and based on unimpeachable, authentic and verifiable documents obtained essentially from the website of the Department of Company Affairs. However, without examining Mid Day’s defence of truth, the High Court held them guilty on the basis that "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." It may be noted that Mid Day’s allegations were only against Justice Sabharwal and they had not even mentioned any other judge in their reports. We regard this view of the Court as highly pernicious which would mean that even truthful exposure of corruption in the judiciary would not be permitted. This view will make a mockery of the basic principles of our democratic republic which is founded on the premise that the people are the real masters and all public servants including the judiciary are working on their behalf and are accountable to them. It would also render irrelevant the amendment in the Contempt of Courts Act by which truth was made a valid defence. A statement signed by several eminent persons in this regard is being issued today and the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms also fully endorses that statement.

Mid-Day case: sentence stayed

Mid-Day case: sentence stayed Saturday, Sep 29, 2007 Front Page New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the four-month imprisonment slapped by the Delhi High Court on the Editor and three others of Mid-Day for publishing articles allegedly defaming the former Chief Justice of India Y.K. Sabharwal. A Bench, comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and P. Sathasivam, admitted two appeals by the alleged contemnors challenging the High Court judgment. On the directions of the Supreme Court, the High Court already granted them bail. On September 11, the High Court held Vitusha Oberoi, Editor; M.K. Tayal, City Editor; S.K. Akhtar, Printer and Publisher; and Md. Irfan Khan, cartoonist guilty of contempt. On September 21, it awarded them four-month imprisonment. When the matter was taken up on Friday, senior counsel Shanthi Bhushan, appearing for the contemnors, told the Bench that statutory appeals had been filed against the High Court order. When senior counsel Anil Divan said 27 eminent citizens had filed an application to implead themselves, the Bench said: “The issue here is whether the journalists had committed contempt or not. Where is the need for assistance of intellectuals? Being statutory appeals; we admit them.” In its brief order, the Bench said the sentence imposed by the High Court should not be executed until further orders. Also, the impleadment application was dismissed. As the High Court passed the order in suo motu contempt, the Bench appointed senior counsel T.R. Andhyarujina amicus curiae, and directed that the appeals be listed for hearing on January 16, 2008.

http://ads2book.co/newspapers/14/MiD-DAY.aspx

MiD DAY MiD DAY is an afternoon compact newspaper in India with editions in Mumbai (Bombay), Bangalore, Delhi and Pune (launched on August 18, 2008). It was established in 1979 as in a family owned newspaper in Mumbai. MiD DAY is owned by Mid Day Infomedia Limited, a subsidiary of Mid Day Multimedia Limited, a publishing house listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange and National Stock Exchange. Presently, it publishes newspapers in three languages: English, Gujarati and an Urdu newspaper called The Inquilab. The Inquilab, was the first paper of the group in Urdu, was born in the fervour of idealistic nationalism in 1938. MiD DAY was launched in 1979, in English. The special Sunday edition of it, the Sunday MiD DAY, began in 1981. The Mumbai newspaper publishes two editions: An early morning and a noon edition. Its slogan is, Make Work Fun. However, since April, 2009, only noon editions have been published and the company has dropped printing a morning newspaper, citing positioning issues. On September 20, 2007, four journalists of MiD DAY, including Resident Editor, Vitusha Oberoi and City Editor MK Tayal were sentenced to four months jail on contempt of court charges[1], because of a report they had filed on the ex-Chief Justice of India, Y. K. Sabharwal. Whether the charges in the report were true or not was not considered in arriving at the decision. Many in the legal community feel that in the 2006 Delhi sealing drive, Justice Sabharwal may have had a conflict of interest since his sons own a firm with relations to the Delhi real estate. Former Solicitor General KK Sud had called this behaviour "the height of indiscretion."[2]. The High Court, however, sentenced the journalists without considering the veracity of the reports, and this has led to considerable hue and cry[3]. Ex-law minister Shanti Bhushan stated that the Parliament had in 2006 amended the Contempt of Courts Act to say that "if the allegations against a judge were found to be true, then they would not be considered contemptuous". In view of this, the judgement, he said, may be "only aimed at terrifying the media and an attempt to curb truthfulness.

Ramlila with twist: Ram & Sita marry during show in Gzb

The couple, who were planning to marry on Oct 23, exchange vows during Ramlila Dwaipayan Ghosh | TNN Publication: The Times Of India Delhi; Date: Oct 18, 2010; Section: Times City; Page: 2 http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:LowLevelEntityToPrint_TOINEW&Type=text/html&Locale=english-skin-custom&Path=CAP/2010/10/18&ID=Ar00201 Ghaziabad: When the 55 feet tall Ravan burst into flames at Indirapuram — triumphing good over evil — two men represented the face of the celebrations in the city. For K Hassan, working president of the Trans-Hindon Shri Ramlila Samiti and S R Zaidi, member of the same samiti, it was an achievement of sorts. It was three months ago that they had come together — amply supported by Trans-Hindon residents Amar Pal Sharma, local politician and Dayamanti Bisht.‘‘The Ayodhya verdict did come as a dampener and uncomfortable questions were raised. The fact that we all stuck together like one family was our greatest achievement,’’ said Hasan. Among those who lent their hand in creating a fund were Sukhbir Singh, the chief of the local Gurdwara Prabandhak Samiti and captain M K Tayal, whose wife played an important part in the preparations even though she is a Christian. According to Tayal, they had booked a group from Moradabad to organize the Ramlila. ‘‘We were pleasantly surprised to know that the leading actor playing Rama — Arjun — and the leading lady playing the role of Sita — Divya — were getting married on October 23. We decided that they exchange the jaimala for real on the very first day of the celebrations in front of thousands of people,’’ said Tayal. This is the first time that the Samiti has come together after the locals of Indirapuram and Vaishali said they had not one Ramlila to celebrate. ‘‘I hail from Azamgarh where we celebrate every festival — be it Eid or Guru Nanak Jayanti. Later, when I joined Aligarh Muslim University and studied engineering in 1959, I became a member of the students’ council. It was from that time that I wanted to celebrate each festival with the same secular sentiments as regards for each faith,’’ said Hasan, a former deputy secretary in the ministry of railway. The police too, gave their support. ‘‘It was an initiative that needed our support. We were involved with the planning right from the very first day. We had a wonderful team that helped to see us through all the security measures and the screening of visitors at the entrance,’’ said a senior police officer from the Indirapuram police station. ‘‘We took special care to use nonpolluting crackers and fireworks. We have also used remote controlled effigy burning so that there was no chance of an accident during the effigy burning process,’’ said Hasan. ‘‘Our success has lifted our spirits and will do even better next time.’’

What Mulayam is sowing, the BJP would reap: Ch Ajit Singh

http://www.indileak.com/what-mulayam-is-sowing-the-bjp-would-reap-ch-ajit-singh-2/ Published On: Thu, Sep 12th, 2013 Lucknow: Union Civil Aviation Minister and Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD) president Ajit Singh on Thursday alleged that in sheer desperation to arrest diminishing support base, Samajwadi Party (SP) chief Mulayam Singh Yadav literally consigned the entire western region of the state into communal inferno. Mulayam Singh Yadav is ruining the entire western UP for his personal political gains Stating that the Akhilesh Yadav-Samajwadi Party government had miserably failed in protecting the life and property of the people, the Union civil aviation minister said that Mulayam Singh Yadav was “trying to damage the social fabric by attempting to polarise the people on communal lines. “I have little hesitation in saying that Mulayam Singh Yadav is ruining the entire western UP for his personal political gains by polarising the voters but he fails to understand that he in turn stands exposed in the eyes of the people,” the RLD chief said. Singh further stated that what the Yadav leader was unable to comprehend was the fact that by whipping up the communal passion, it was not the Samajwadi Party but the Bharatiya Janata Party that would gain in the electoral battle. In this context, Singh reminded that history holds testimony to the fact that in the event of polarisation it is always the BJP that emerges as a major gainer. According to IT and media cell incharge of RLD, Capt MK Tayal, party chief Ajit Singh, who is a member of parliament from Baghpat was prevented from entering in neighbouring Muzaffarnagar on Thursday. His motorcade was stopped at the Loni gate on the UP-Delhi border, said Tayal. UP police officials apprised the minister that in wake of the prevailing circumstances in the region, he could not be allowed to proceed any further. Angry supporters and RLD activists accompanying Ajit Singh raised anti-government slogans and demanded that their leader be allowed to go to the trouble-torn areas.

High Court convicts 4 Mid Day journalists of contempt of court

High Court convicts 4 Mid Day journalists of contempt of court Harish V Nair, Hindustan Times New Delhi, September 12, 2007 The Delhi High Court on Tuesday convicted four senior journalists of Mid Day daily of contempt of court for “tarnishing the image of the Supreme Court” by publishing certain scandalous articles about former Chief Justice of India, YK Sabharwal. Those found guilty MK Tayal, Editor (City), SK Akhtar, the then Publisher, Vitusha Oberoi, Resident Editor, and Irfan Khan, Cartoonist have been directed to be present before the court on September 21 when it will pronounce the quantum of sentence. “The publications, in the garb of scandalising a retired Chief Justice of India, have, in fact, attacked the very institution, which according to us is nothing short of contempt,” a Bench of Justice RS Sodhi and Justice BN Chaturvedi said. Mid Day dated May 19, 2007 had carried news reports that the sealing orders issued by a Bench headed by Justice YK Sabharwal was intended to benefit his sons who had ties with mall developers. “The Supreme Court in its judgements have clearly laid down the Lakshaman Rekha, which we feel the publications have crossed,” the Bench observed. The Court rejected the contention of the daily, which had submitted that a judge, after retiring, ceases to be part of the judicial system and writing against him didn’t come within the ambit of contempt of court. “The nature of the revelations and the context in which they appear, though purporting to single out the former Chief Justice of India, tarnishes the image of the Supreme Court itself. It tends to erode the confidence of the general public in the institution itself,” the Bench said. The judges said the Supreme Court sits in division 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 fulfil the ulterior motive. This we find most disturbing”, the Bench said in its order.

Justice Sabharwal's Defence Gets Murkier

Justice Sabharwal's Defence Gets Murkier http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main34.asp?filename=Ne220907JUSTICE.asp Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, part of the eminent panel that framed allegations against former Chief Justice of India YK Sabharwal, rebuts the retired judge’s rejoinder point by point Using the strategy of a clever and street-smart defence lawyer, Justice YK Sabharwal’s defence of the serious charges levelled against him sidesteps the inconvenient and emphasises the irrelevant to evoke sympathy. To examine the adequacy of his defence, we need to see his defence against the gravamen of each charge against him. CHARGE NO. 1 That his sons’ companies had shifted their registered offices to his official residence. SABHARWAL’S RESPONSE: That as soon as he came to know he ordered his sons’ to shift them back. OUR REJOINDER: This is false. In April 2007, in a recorded interview with the Mid-Day reporter MK Tayal he feigned total ignorance of the shifting of the offices to his official residence. In fact, the registered offices were shifted back from his official residence to his Punjabi Bagh residence exactly on the day that the Business Park Town Planners Ltd (BPTP) mall developers became his sons’ partners, making it very risky to continue at his official residence. CHARGE NO. 2 That he called for and dealt with the sealing of commercial property case in March 2005, though it was not assigned to him. It is only the Chief Justice (CJ)who can assign pending cases to various judges. He was not the CJ at that time. Justice Sabharwal does not answer this charge. CHARGE NO. 3 That he did this exactly around the time that his sons got into partnerships with mall and commercial complex developers, who stood to benefit from his sealing orders. HIS RESPONSE: That they were his sons’ friends. That Harpawan Constructors which was set up by his sons with the mall developer Purushottam Bagheria did not do any business. In fact the courts under him got Bagheria’s 1 MG road mall demolished. That his sons are not developing shopping malls but only an IT park. OUR REJOINDER: If so many mall and commercial complex developers were his sons’ close friends, then he should not have dealt with the case anyway since that creates an immediate conflict of interest. Moreover, why should they go into partnership with these developers who stood to benefit from Justice Sabharwal’s orders, and that too exactly at the time when he seizes control of the sealing of commercial property case and starts dealing with it. He says that the company set up by his sons in partnership with Bagheria has not done any business. If so, why was this new company set up for developing commercial complexes in partnership with this builder? In an interview with Zee News, Justice Sabharwal claims credit for the judiciary under him ordering the demolition of the illegal 1 MG road mall owned by Bagheria. But then why do his sons enter into partnerships with such an illegal builder whose buildings have had to be demolished by the Judiciary? And immediately after this partnership with the Sabharwals, Bagheria went on to announce the construction of “Square 1 mall” in Saket as the most fashionable mall in India. And all the fashion designers who had their shops and outlets at 1 MG road went on to buy space in the Square 1 mall. What is important to note here is that Bagheria and his partners at 1 MG road had already parted with all the space on 1 MG.The demolition thus hurt the designers and others who had bought shops there, but did not hurt Bagheria who may have benefited from it by clearing the land of his tenants and getting them to buy space at his new malls in Saket and elsewhere. An IT park is also a commercial complex like any other. Many commercial establishments sealed were IT centres and BPOs which were forced to buy space in IT parks like that being constructed by his sons and their partners. CHARGE NO. 4 That the Union Bank of India gave a loan of Rs 28 crore to his sons’ company: Pawan Impex on a collateral of plant and machinery and other moveables at the site of their proposed IT park, which were non-existent. HIS RESPONSE: That his sons’ had a credit facility of Rs 75 crore. OUR REJOINDER: If that were the case, what was the need for mortgaging non-existent assets for obtaining this loan? Moreover, the banks’ senior manager is on record saying that the loan was given on the basis of projected sales to prospective customers. CHARGE NO. 5 That because of the obvious conflict of interest, he could not have dealt with this case. HIS RESPONSE: That his orders have never benefited his sons. OUR REJOINDER: His orders of sealing lakhs of commercial properties clearly forced those establishments to buy or rent space in commercial complexes like those that his sons’ company were constructing; and shopping malls etc that their friends and partners were constructing. There was a clear conflict of interest and his orders have clearly benefited his sons and their partners. CHARGE NO. 6 That a large number of industrial and commercial plots were allotted in Noida by the UP government to his sons’ companies, at prices far below the market price. In particular, several huge plots were allotted between December 2004 and November 2006 by the Mulayam Singh/Amar Singh government, while he was dealing with the Amar Singh tapes case, and had stayed the publication of those tapes on the behest of Amar Singh. HIS RESPONSE: That some of the plots were allotted by earlier different governments. That the prices were not far below the market price. That the allotments were made in the normal course to his sons who were entrepreneurs and were providing employment to hundreds of people in Noida. OUR REJOINDER: The allotments are definitely not in the normal course. How can three plots of one acre each be allotted to one company on the same date? In fact, these allotments are made at a time when the share capital of this company was just Rs 1 lakh and it had no track record of making any IT park or doing any business whatsoever. They have been allotted within days of the application with no procedure of draw of lots or any other system being followed, other than a bogus interview. The rate of Rs 3,700 per square metre was far below the market rate, and anybody including us would be happy to buy these plots at three times the allotment rate today. The huge plot of three acres, No. 12 A in Sector 68 (which appears to be carved out later for them) to Sabs Exports in November 2006 at a throwaway price of Rs 4,000 per square metre is also not in the normal course and was similarly made within days of application and a bogus interview, without any other system. Moreover, the allotment has been made at a time when he was dealing with the Amar Singh tapes case and had stayed the publication of the tapes. We would be happy to buy that plot too at three times the price at which it was given to them. CHARGE NO. 7 That his sons have purchased a 1,150-square metre house in Maharani Bagh, New Delhi in March 2007 for a consideration of Rs 15.46 crore. The source of money for this is unexplained and in the sale deed they seek to conceal their relationship with Justice Sabharwal by writing his name as Yogesh Kumar and giving their factory address instead of the residential address. HIS RESPONSE: That 90 percent of the money for the purchase of this house was from four banks; that his sons concealed his full name in the sale deed in order to avoid taking advantage of their association with him. OUR REJOINDER: Banks do not normally advance loans of 90 percent of the value of a property on its security. Otherwise they would end up holding inadequate security if the property prices fall by even 15 percent. If they have done so in this case, it is either because of an undue favour as in the case of the loan of Rs 28 crore to Pawan Impex, or they valued the property higher than the declared purchase price. His explanation for concealing his name in the sale deed is hilarious and unbelievable since his sons did not hesitate to use his official residence as the registered office of their companies. Moreover, this was in a registered sale deed with a private party, where there was no occasion for taking any advantage by using his name. It is therefore clear that Justice Sabharwal is guilty of serious judicial misconduct and appears to be prima facie guilty of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act which need to be investigated. Sep 22, 2007

Sabharwal case: 'Midday' journalists held guilty of contempt

Zee News http://zeenews.india.com/home/sabharwal-case-midday-journalists-held-guilty-of-contempt_394277.html Tuesday, September 11, 2007, 00:00 New Delhi, Sept 11: Holding that the 'Laxman Rekha' was crossed, the Delhi High Court today held four journalists of a city daily 'Mid-Day' guilty of contempt of court for publishing articles against former Chief Justice of India Y K Sabharwal saying they tarnished the Supreme Court's image. M K Tayal, Editor (City), S K Akhtar, the then Publisher, Vitusha Oberoi, Resident Editor, and Irfan Khan, Cartoonist, were held guilty of Contempt by a Division Bench of the Court which directed them to be present before it on September 21 when it will pronounce the quantum of sentence. "The publications in the garb of scandalising a retired Chief Justice of India have, in fact, attacked the very institution, which according to us, is nothing short of contempt. "The Supreme Court in its judgement has clearly laid down the Lakshaman Rekha which we feel the publications have crossed," the Bench comprising Justice R S Sodhi and Justice B N Chaturvedi said in the judgement on articles and cartoons that appeared in the newspaper about retired Chief Justice of India Y K Sabharwal. The order was pronounced on the articles written in the paper with regard to a judgement delivered by a Bench headed by Justuice Sabharwal on the sealing issue in the capital which the paper said was intended to benefit his sons' business. In a published article in a newspaper recently, Justice Sabharwal refuted the allegations and said that the daily had imputed a motive to these judgements and carried a malicious campaign for three months. Calling it a "reckless insinuation", Justice Sabharwal had said that his worry was not as much about his individual pain and agony but about the adverse impact such unwarranted public verdicts can have on the independence of judiciary. The Court rejected the contention of the daily which had submitted that a judge after being retired ceases to be part of the judicial system and writing against him didn't come within the ambit of contempt of Court. "The nature of the revelations and the context in which they appear, though purporting to single out the 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 Bench said. The Court said in May when the news reports were placed before it, notices were issued it Tayal, Akhtar and Oberoi. The paper also published a cartoon on Justice Sabharwal which it thought also aimed at lowering the image of Judiciary. The Contemnors took the defence that the sons of the former Chief Justice had benefited by the orders of the Supreme Court and that they were operating their business from the official residence of Justice Sabharwal. They claimed that whatever was said in the publication was the truth which according to them was a permissible defence. "We have carefully gone through the affidavits filed by the contemners and heard extensive arguments of 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 the time when he had ceased to be in the office and therefore can't be termed as denigrating the authority of the Apex Court," the Court said. It was contended by the journalists that propriety demanded that the Chief Justice of India ought not to have been on the Bench which passed the orders concerning sealing of properties where non-conforming activities were going on and it was the duty of a journalist to expose the corruption in the judiciary at the highest level. The counsel had also contended that the material on the record had ample proof of the fact that sons of the former Chief Justice of India were beneficiaries of sealing of commercial premises in the capital. Bhushan had also said that he was not challenging the correctness of the order of the Supreme Court but the order of the former Chief Justice of India, wh o was the presiding member of the Bench, had committed an impropriety by passing the orders which benefited his sons. "We have carefully gone through the articles published as also the cartoon. We find the manner in which the entire the incident has been projected appears as if the Supreme Court permitted itself to be laid into fulfilling an ulterior motive of one of the members," the Court said. It observed that the Court sits in Divisions and every order is of a Bench. Imputing motive to its presiding member automatically sends a signal that the other members were dummies or were party to fulfilling the ulterior design. "This we find most disturbing. There is sufficient case law in the subject and we need hardly add any further material to it," it said. Citing a Supreme Court judgement of 2004, the Bench said he apex Court had clearly laid down the 'Laxman Rekha' which "we feel the publications have crossed". Bureau Report

Press Club of India committee

Press Club of India Managing Committee PRESIDENT Mr. T. R. Ramachandran, Former chief of bureau The Tribune, Times of India VICE PRESIDENTS Mr. Anil Anand, Sr Assistant Editor, Daily News and Analysis Ms. Vineeta Pandey, Sr Assistant Editor, Daily News and Analysis SECRETARY GENERAL Mr. Sandeep Dikshit, Sr Assistant Editor, The Hindu TREASURER Mr. Nadeem Ahmad Kazmi, Editor, NDTV MANAGING COMMITTEE Ms. Aarti Dhar, Special Correspondent, The Hindu Ms. Aditi Nigam, Sr Assistant Editor, Businessline Mr. Anoop Saxena, Correspondent, German radio Mr. Avtar Negi, Assistant Director Doordarshan Mr. Dinesh Tewari, Assistant Editor, Dainik Hindustan Mr. Jagdish Yadav, Photographer Mr. Jomy Thomas, Spl Corresp, Malayalam Manorama Mr. M. K. Tayal, Asst Correspondent, Political & Business Daily Mr. Narendra Bhalla, Senior Correspondent, Pioneer Mr. Nitin A. Gokhale, Senior Editor, NDTV Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Defence Correspondent, NDTV Mr. Sanjay Singh, Defence Correspondent, Rashtriya Sahara Mr. Sanjeev Upadhyaya, Assistant Director Doordarshan Mr. Shambhu Nath Choudhary, Assistant Director Doordarshan Mr. Sumit Mishra, Input Editor, Aaj Tak Mr. Vijay Saluja, Photo Editor, Pana India

Getting ‘paid’ for news

Day After Dec 16-31, 2010 Buying and selling for a few bucks Newspapers are not what they used to be. Once a written word carried weight, was sacrosanct, and largely unchallenged. But today the situation has changed. It takes a few thousand bucks to get ‘news’ printed. The phenomenon of Paid News is spreading like cancer. What is shocking is that the biggest ‘brands’ in the media industry are leading the race. M K Tayal brings you what it means for you as a reader… by M K Tayal I was sitting in a newspaper office, when a small time courier-cum office boy of a political party walked in with a press release and a photograph. He kept it on the bureau chief’s desk. The worker then took out six Rs 1,000 crisp notes, put the money on the news item, folded his hand and said, “Double column with picture”. The bureau chief nodded and pocketed the money. The worker left. The newspaper claims to be one of the largest circulated in the country. Next day, I read the news in that paper with a shinning headline praising the candidate who was contesting elections. The same news I read in two-three newspapers. I started wondering, “What are the readers getting?” These days much of the ‘news’ in newspapers and television channels is paid by the people who are being mentioned in that particular news. The malaise of the ‘paid news’ has gripped almost the entire industry, with big brands of English, Hindi or vernacular press in the forefront. Virtues of honesty and truthfulness have just become words to be delivered in seminars by those who bend and break every rule in the book. So, be it election related coverage of newspapers or a party in downtown pub, chances are that the candidates or the party organizers would have put some cash above the press release to get their news through to you. The question that arises is that aren’t newspapers and TV channels taking advertisements. The answer is yes, but paid news comes as an editorial package, where readers and viewers are made to believe that the newspaper or that particular channel has got a story running by one of its staffers. Thus the credibility of the news article is much more had it slipped in as an advertisement. It is alleged that many media houses in the country, irrespective of their volume of business, sell news space to politicians and corporates without admitting that it is advertisements. Interestingly, while many newspapers offices function without any formal structure to bring out paid news, big newspapers and TV channels have corporatised their paid news structure. It operated a company, Media Net, which later became Optimal Media Solutions. OMS has recently merged with the Times Business Solutions Ltd, a times company. Here you can get pay and get news printed in the prestigious newspaper. Ironically, the Times is not alone. From Daink Jagran to Punjab Kesri or CNN-IBN, all are into paid news. Newspaper and TV editors are aware of this concept of selling editorial space and content, and have always been cautious of not breaching the thin line. But often, editors and editorial space is marginalized by the owners and entrepreneurs who run the show. Money is an important factor and whoever is willing to spend gets his say in editorial matters. In the good old days of advertising, no publisher would speak or write against big advertisers. That is why corporates resorted to buying advertisement space to influence editorial heads and space. There was still the liberty of journalists slipping in facts in their writings. But even that charade was given up with the advent of paid news. Then corporate started working on another method to get the ‘news’ across to the readers. They take editors on freebees and the rest is palatable crap. This happens with airlines, hotels and big companies that can afford the tantrums of the journalists. Vir Sanghvi’s article on the Taj hotel – Falkunama Palace in the Hindustan Times Brunch was one such superb piece. Of course, neither Singhvi, a food writer, nor Taj would admit that it was a part of the exercise that the industry resorts to. The practice of paying for editorial content, particularly by political candidates, has been a gnawing issue in India for many years. At the South Asia Free Media Association (SAFMA) India discussed the issue with concern. Even the Editors’ Guild of India expressed anguish at the growing tendency of a section of media groups (both print and visual) receiving money for some “non-advertorial” items in their media space. The guild sent a letter to each of its member-editors throughout the country to ask for a pledge that his/her “publication/TV channel will not carry any paid news as the practice violates and undermines the principles of free and fair journalism.” The letter, signed by Rajdeep Sardesai and Coomi Kapoor, president and secretary-general of the guild respectively, expressed hope that “the journalist fraternity would come together on this issue and would stand up to defend their credibility, and make public declarations on the subject in order to restore the reading and viewing public’s faith in the media by undoing the damage that has already been done.” Today, India has nearly 70,000 registered newspapers and over 450 television channels. Though, the media, as a whole, often plays a constructive role, concerns of paid news comes as a cropper. “Paid news being published as news is not acceptable to anyone, the readers or polity. Star News is using their air space for LG mobile, using word advertisement is good enough, after all now these days media is not a mission it’s a business,” says Shishir Soni a journalist with a Hindi daily. Many distinguished editor-journalists of India including, K K Katyal, Satich Jacob, Kumar Ketkar (editor of Loksatta), Om Thanvi (editor of Jansatta), Vinod Sharma (political editor of Hindustan Times), Sevanti Ninan and more, have expressed serious concern at the growing trend of selling news space. Meanwhile, the Press Council of India, decided to investigate the issue and set up a committee to examine violations of the journalistic code of fair and objective reporting by having paid news. Dr Madhav Kinhalkar of Maharashtra has filed a case against former chief minister Ashok Chavan relating to paid news and subsequently sought his disqualification under Section 77 of the People’s Representation Act in the Election Commission of India. Lawyers Uday Lalit and Dilip Annasaheb Taur submitted a compilation of 700 pages which includes major newspaper cutting which have published full pull out color supplements in the form of news, 32 advertisements published in major local newspapers which have not been accounted by Chavan in his election expenditure. Meanwhile, Chavan got the boot for the Adarsh scam. The arguments are inconclusive in the ECI and the case goes on. “But the fact remains, will the ECI count the ‘news items’ as paid news or not, is the question,” Dr Kinhalkar tells The Dayafter at Maharashtra Sadan in New Delhi after a hearing at the ECI. Till the newspaper and TV channels owners decide to put a stop on this, it is unlikely that editors can have a say in such matters. You cannot skip this phenomenon and get good old news as it was unless you give up on the daily dose of TV and newspaper. Till then keep reading, paid stuff.

Not denigrating court authority: contemnors

The Hindu September 22, 2007 Staff Reporter NEW DELHI: The journalists of Mid-Day sentenced by the Delhi High Court on Friday submitted that whatever was published in its May 18 edition was the truth, a permissible defence in a contempt case. The contemnors through their lawyers, Shanti Bhushan and Prashant Bhushan, said the condemnation of Mr. Justice Sabharwal through the publications was made at a time when he ceased to be in office and, therefore, could not be termed denigrating the authority of the Supreme Court. They said that as a matter of propriety Mr. Justice Sabharwal ought to have recused himself from the Bench that passed the orders in the sealing case in the capital. The High Court Bench in its judgment said: “The manner in which the entire incidence has been projected gives the impression as if the Supreme Court permitted itself to be led into fulfilling an ulterior motive of one of its members. It tends to erode the confidence of the general public in the institution itself.” New Delhi Special Correspondent writes: The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) on Friday strongly deplored the sentence. Reacting to the Delhi High Court’s order the IFJ in a statement said that the coverage had been found to be factual and accurate by a group of lawyers. IFJ’s director for the Asia-Pacific region, Jacqueline Park, expressed the hope that the Indian justice system would exonerate the defendants on appeal. “We call upon the Indian Supreme Court to apply the principle that truth is an adequate defence in cases involving contempt of court.”

Jagjit Singh Chauhan: "Khalistan Will Be Formed by 2007"

THE SIKH TIMES sikhtimes.com Interview in 2004 ... By M.K. TAYAL, Mid-Day, Jun. 6, 2004 Once self-proclaimed president of Khalistan, Dr. Jagjit Singh Chauhan, after winning a long legal battle has returned to India and has since been living a life of solitude. To catch him on the 20th anniversary of the Operation Blue Star, we walked into a hospital, anticipating arrogance and hostility, what greeted was a warm smile and cup of tea. After waging a war against India, which he calls an artificial nation, Jagjit, 76, now wants to be a selfless worker for Khalistan. From the heady days, Jagjit now tends to patients that come to his charity hospital in Tanda in Hoshiarpur district of Punjab. Heading the Khalsa Raj party, he is supported by parties like Dal Khalsa and Khalsa Conference. He claims he never was a part of the armed struggle led by Bhindranwale and never propagated self-determination by the weapon. In India, he is taking up the cause in a peaceful and democratic manner. Jagjit, who was once chased by the intelligence units and labelled anti-national, is now waiting for the end of his life. To give meaning, he decided to serve people, but his heart aches for the land of his dream, which he believes will happen by 2007. On top of his hospital, the Khalistan flag unfurls and so do his dreams about an independent Khalsa land, Khalistan. Excerpts: M.K. Tayal: What are you doing these days? Jagjit Singh Chauhan: I run this charitable hospital. I serve people and take care of them. I have donated this land to the hospital that I had earlier rented out. But then I found that the doctors I had rented the place to were charging exorbitant amounts. So I decided to step in. M.K.T.: This hospital looks new. J.S.C.: Yes, I am still constructing it. It will have 30 beds, an operation theatre and labs. The land is around eight acres and costs nearly Rs. 100 crore. Local mafia tried to grab it and now I am fighting a court case against them. M.K.T.: What about your movement, Khalistan? J.S.C.: The movement continues. Violence was injected by the Indian intelligence agencies. Bhindranwale was surrounded by agents. The Indian government wanted to curb the movement, so they knew it would be finished by the gun. But how long can violence last? See Sri Lanka, Palestine, Nagaland. There is no end. M.K.T.: But why come to India after all that? J.S.C.: In London, I was leading a comfortable life. But then I didn't want it any more. I had free rail passes and accommodation. They even gave us a room in the Parliament. But the real movement is the Khalsa movement that was started in 1699. M.K.T.: What was the impact of Operation Blue Star? J.S.C.: Bhindranwale was in the right. He was a preacher. The army should not have attacked the Darbar Sahib. M.K.T.: Now what do you plan to do? J.S.C.: See one day, India will be the United States of South Asia [U.S.S.A.]. It will have Afghanistan. Pakistan will break up into five parts and be a part of U.S.S.A. And so will India. Bangladesh will also join. Nehru wanted to be king. He virtually became king. He divided the states too. M.K.T.: Do you think people want Khalistan? J.S.C.: Every Sikh wants it. They may not admit it. But that is a fact. Is it alive and how strong is the movement today? Very much alive. We have chapters in London, Washington, Canada. We have a radio station and even a T.V. channel besides websites. M.K.T.: What is the difference between these chapters? J.S.C.: Style of working. Washington wants a hi-tech office. It is modern. M.K.T.: Is the U.S.-based Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh the president of the Council of Khalistan? J.S.C.: Yes! I was the president but now, I want to be a simple worker. M.K.T.: What happened to the currency of Khalistan? J.S.C.: Oh! That was symbolic. It is still present. It was started to pressure the government. M.K.T.: What do you see as the future? J.S.C.: I will not stop talking about Khalistan. After Operation Blue Star, I said Indira Gandhi would not see 1985. She was killed before 1985. It came true. Then Prime Minister Chandrashekhar met me in London. I told him Rajiv Gandhi would also be killed. Ten days later, he was. What I say is with a lot of intuition I use it in politics. Now Khalistan will be formed by 2007. M.K.T.: How will it be different from India? J.S.C.: It won’t have corrupt people like Laloo Prasad Yadav or the Jan Sangh (B.J.P.). India is an artificial country. M.K.T.: What about Manmohan Singh? J.S.C.: He is an honest economist but how long will he last in the system? Khalistan will have local-level bodies and no S.P.s and D.M.s. These village councils (Khalsa panchayat) would also perform the duties of the courts. M.K.T.: Has the recognition by the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation [U.N.P.O.] at the Hague given a boost to the movement? J.S.C.: Yes. Apart from that we already have three-four M.P.s in the British Parliament. Kashmir has four-five M.P.s. Our movement is coordinating with the Kashmiris.

Truth as defence Frontline Volume 24 - Issue 20 :: Oct. 06-19, 2007 By V. VENKATESAN in New Delhi The amendment to the Contempt of Courts Act providing for truth as a defence is on test in the case against “Mid-Day” of Delhi. IN 2006, Parliament amended the Contempt of Courts Act (CCA) to introduce Section 13(b), which states: “The courts may permit, in any proceedings for contempt of court, justification by truth as a valid defence if it is satisfied that it is in public interest and the request for invoking the said defence is bona fide.” The object of this amendment was to introduce fairness in procedure and meet the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The amendment failed to achieve its object when the Delhi High Court Bench comprising Justices R.S. Sodhi and B.N. Chaturvedi found three journalists and the publisher of Mid-Day, Delhi’s afternoon daily, guilty of contempt of court, and sentenced them to four months’ imprisonment on September 21. The Bench found journalists M.K. Tayal and Vitusha Oberoi, cartoonist Md. Irfaan Khan, and publisher S.K. Akhtar guilty of contempt. In its view, they, in the garb of “scandalising” a retired Chief Justice of India through their publications, have, in fact, attacked the very institution of judiciary. The Bench arrived at this conclusion through convoluted reasoning and a procedure that is glaringly flawed. Mid-Day published on May 18 a story hinting that the sons of the former Chief Justice of India, Y.K. Sabharwal, benefited by the Judge’s orders directing the sealing of commercial properties in the residential areas of Delhi, and that the sons were operating their businesses from the Judge’s official residence. Irfaan Khan’s cartoon, which was carried in the daily on May 19, depicted Justice Sabharwal in his robes holding a bag bursting with currency. It also depicted a man sitting on the sidewalk saying, “Help! The mall is in your court.” In response to the notices issued to them by the Bench, the accused journalists claimed in their affidavits that whatever was published in Mid-Day about Justice Sabharwal was the truth, which is a permissible defence. They also contended that the stories carried in the daily focussed on the life of the former Chief Justice of India after he had left office and, therefore, could not be termed as denigrating the authority of the Supreme Court. They also argued, through their counsel Shanti Bhushan, that the Chief Justice ought not to have been on the Bench that passed orders concerning the sealing of properties in Delhi where non-conforming activities were going on and further that it was the duty of a journalist to expose corruption in the judiciary at the highest level. Shanti Bhushan also told the Bench that the material on record was ample proof that the sons of the former Chief Justice were beneficiaries of the sealings. Shanti Bhushan clarified to the Bench that he was not challenging the correctness of the order of the Supreme Court but the order of the former Chief Justice, who was the presiding member of the Bench and who, by his impropriety, passed orders sealing premises in which commercial activities were being conducted, in order to benefit his sons’ business. But these arguments failed to convince the High Court Bench. It appeared to the Bench, from the manner in which the entire incident has been projected, that the Supreme Court was portrayed by Mid-Day as having 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 a 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 that of a Bench. Imputing motive to its presiding member automatically sends a signal that the other members were dummies or were party to fulfil the ulterior design. This we find most disturbing,” the Bench said. Observers note that by no stretch of imagination can it be held that the Mid-Day stories on Justice Sabharwal suggested that other members of the Bench had connived at his “impropriety”. The Bench, as is clear from this order, did not find it necessary to consider truth as a defence while holding the journalists guilty of contempt. It may be of interest to point out that the amendment to the CCA providing for truth as a defence is by way of addition to Section 13, which says that contempt is not punishable in certain cases. In other words, the CCA envisages two types of offences of contempt of court: those which are punishable and those which are not. Section 13(a) says that no court shall impose a sentence under this Act for contempt of court unless it is satisfied that contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice. During the arguments over the sentencing of the contemners on September 21, the counsel for the journalists again raised the plea of truth as a defence under Section 13(b) of the Act. The Bench, however, brushed aside the plea, asking “truth of what?” It is clear, therefore, that the Bench considered the case as one of punishable contempt. The Bench, however, failed to ensure that the requirements of the Act were met in letter and spirit. The Bench obviously found the journalists guilty of contempt under Section 2c (i) of the Act. Under this section, “criminal contempt” is defined as the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which scandalises or tends to scandalise or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court. Observers have pointed out that law has implicitly provided for truth as a defence under this section as it is only falsehood that can scandalise or lower the authority of any court. The procedural flaws in the case were substantial. One is about the High Court’s jurisdiction to entertain the case suo motu. It has exercised its jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution. This Article says that every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court, including the power to punish for contempt of itself. Section 11 of the CCA says: “A High Court shall have jurisdiction to inquire into or try a contempt of itself or of any court subordinate to it, whether the contempt is alleged to have been committed within or outside the local limits of its jurisdiction, and whether the person alleged to be guilty of contempt is within or outside such limits.” Going by this provision, it is not clear how the High Court Bench considered the matter as falling within its jurisdiction, even though the contempt alleged is of the Supreme Court, which is not subordinate to it. Under Article 129, only the Supreme Court has the power to punish for contempt of itself. On September 28, the Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice P. Sathasivam admitted the appeals of the journalists concerned and stayed their sentence until the disposal of the case. On the directions of the Supreme Court, the High Court granted them bail on September 21. The Bench appointed senior counsel T.R. Andhyarujina amicus curiae and directed that the appeals be listed for hearing on January 16, 2008. The case has brought to the fore the effectiveness of the amendment incorporated in the CCA. The Bill on this amendment was cleared by a Parliamentary Standing Committee (12th Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice) in August 2005. In its report, the Committee hoped that the higher judiciary would give due regard to this statutory provision (guaranteeing truth as defence), maintaining the principles of fairness and reasonableness it was known for. The Committee also believed that such procedure would give the contemner full opportunity to make his defence and ensure that the principle of natural justice was not violated. More important, the Committee had recommended that the defence of truth be inserted as one of the exemptions or defences under Section 8 of CCA rather than under Section 13 because it felt it would give the contemner additional help in that he could defend himself on the grounds of truth. But the government did not accept this recommendation while enacting the Bill. The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC) recommended in 2002 an amendment of Article 19(2) of the Constitution to provide for defence of truth in contempt proceedings. The Commission took this view, considering the inherent powers derived by the Supreme Court and High Courts from Articles 129 and 215. The Commission had reasoned that a total embargo on truth as justification would be an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression, which is guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a). The government, however, felt that a constitutional amendment for this purpose would be a time-consuming process, and thus opted to amend the Act. The question raised in legal circles is whether the journalists held guilty of contempt would have succeeded in establishing the truth of their allegations against Justice Sabharwal, even if the Delhi High Court had allowed truth as a defence during the proceedings against them. As Prashant Bhushan of the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) told the Standing Committee: “If anybody does a story and even if he says it is bona fide, he may not be able to prove the truth of what he is saying. He may legitimately believe as true what he is saying. But he may not be able to prove in a court of law unless statutory investigation is made by the police agency and documents are seized.” The pressure mounting on the Chief Justice of India, Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, to constitute an inquiry into Mid-Day’s allegations against Justice Sabharwal – later authenticated by the CJAR’s painstaking documentation available on its website – thus makes sense.