The SC raised hopes that four journalists of Delhi’s Mid-Day newspaper, sentenced to 4 months imprisonment for contempt of court, will get a sympathetic hearing.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday raised hopes that four journalists of Delhi’s Mid-Day newspaper, sentenced to four months imprisonment for contempt of court, will get a sympathetic hearing.
Last week, the Delhi high court had sentenced journalist Vitusha Oberoi and three colleagues — Mid-Day city editor MK Tayal, former publisher SK Akhtar, and cartoonist Irfan Khan — for publishing an expose relating to former chief justice of India YK Sabharwal. The articles seemed to suggest that Sabharwal’s series of sealing orders on Delhi buildings had helped his own sons or their friends in business.
During proceedings that lasted all of seven minutes, a bench comprising justices Arijit Pasayat and P Sathasivam said the “court will look into the legality and correctness of the high court order.” The court will hear the petitions filed by the journalists on #January 16, 2008.
Former law minister Shanti Bhushan had drawn the court’s attention to the controversial high court judgment. The Supreme Court’s order was short: “Admitted for hearing. Stay of sentence till a final decision in these appeals.’
The high court judgment was viewed by jurists and the media as a case of “exceeding its jurisdiction”, primarily because the contempt case involved a higher court, the Supreme Court.
The apex court urged former solicitor-general TR Andhyarujina, an expert in contempt law and public morality, to assist the court in the proceedings.
While admitting the journalists’ petition for a review of the high court judgment, the Supreme Court judges refused to allow an intervention by a group of 27 eminent persons representing “civil society”. Their counsel, Anil B Divan, himself a legal expert, said the issues raised by them are of vital importance.
“How can we allow their intervention in a statutory appeal against a high court order under the Contempt of Court Act?’’ the judges asked while declining the intervention.
Analysts, however, said that the group of 27 could move a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a direction to probe the allegations of corruption against the former chief justice.
They could challenge the high court order on the ground that if truth can be a ground for defence in a case of contempt of court, the high court should not have convicted the scribes.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}