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