Supreme Court quashes contempt order against four Delhi journalists
NEW DELHI: Almost a decade after four senior journalists of Mid-Day daily was convicted of contempt of court for publishing alleged scandalous articles about former Chief Justice of India YK Sabharwal, the Supreme Court on Monday set aside the order passed by the Delhi High Court.
The high court had found guilty MK Tayal, then editor (City), SK Akhtar, the then publisher, Vitusha Oberoi, then resident editor, and Irfan Khan, cartoonist for “tarnishing the image of the Supreme Court”.
The Mid-Day story was about the alleged misuse of official residence of Justice Sabharwal, who demitted office as CJI on January 13, 2007, by the same being shown as the registered office of three companies promoted by his sons.
Mid-Day’s editor had in an affidavit stated that all the facts published in the paper were supported by “unimpeachable documents and were true”.
The high court, however, held the newspaper guilty of contempt and later sentenced them to four months’ imprisonment.
The order of the high court was challenged before the apex court.
On Monday a bench of Chief Justice of India TS Thakur and Justice AM Khanwilkar said that the high court could not have initiated the contempt proceedings as “no part of the publications referred to the Delhi high court”.
It agreed with Oberoi’s contention that the apex court was competent to punish for contempt of itself.
“If Supreme Court does not, despite the availability of the power vested in it, invoke the same to punish for its contempt, there is no question of a court subordinate to the Supreme Court doing so,” the bench said.
The court noted that “nothing in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or in Article 215 of the Constitution which can be said to empower the High Court to initiate proceedings for the contempt of a superior Court like the Supreme Court of India”.
“Viewed from any angle, the order passed by the High Court appears to us to be without jurisdiction, hence, liable to be set aside,” the bench said.
The judgement said the function of an elected representative must be secular in both outlook and practise.
“Religion has no role in electoral process which is a secular activity,” the judges added.
“Mixing religion with State power is not permissible while freedom to practice profess and propagate religion of one’s choice is guaranteed. The State being secular in character will not identify itself with any one of the religions or religious denominations.”
The verdict will have significant implications in states that go to the polls just months from now, especially in Uttar Pradesh, where the construction of a Ram Temple in Ayodhya and castebased mobilisation are top poll planks.
In Punjab too, religion and sacrilege are top campaign issues.
Most political parties and religious groups said they were happy with the judgment.
“I welcome this pragmatic message from the Supreme Court with regard to how politics has come to be dominated by caste and religious equations, especially by some parties which have made these a part of their ideology to rise in Indian politics,” said Congress spokesperson Priyanka Chaturvedi.
“This needed to be discouraged.” Communist Party of India leader D. Raja agreed with her.
Surendra Jain, Vishwa Hindu Parishad International general secretary, as well as Jamat-eIslami Hind (JIH) also called for strict enforcement of the judgment.
But the three dissenting judges said such a decision could be THE SUPREME COURT seen as prohibiting people from articulating legitimate concerns of voters and reducing “democracy to an abstraction”.
“No government is perfect. The law doesn’t prohibit dialogue or discussion of a matter which is concern to the voters,” the dissenters said.
Discussion and dialogue related to a voter’s background is part of social mobilisation to bring marginalized groups into the mainstream, it said.
The court was revisiting a 20-year-old judgment that called Hinduism a “way of life” and said a candidate was not affected prejudicially if votes were sought on this plank.
But several petitions filed over the years have challenged the verdict.
The question before the top court is whether seeking votes in the name of religion was a corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act, and if candidates who indulge in this practice should be disqualified.
The dissenting judgment was delivered by Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, Adarsh Kumar Goel and Uday Umesh Lalit.
They held that the term “his” religion in the law referred only to the religion of candidates.
The majority view, shared by Justices M B Lokur, S A Bobde and L N Rao, said secularism had to be considered while dealing with such issues.
Chief justice Thakur, who retired on Tuesday, backed the majority view.
Patriarch Mulayam Singh Yadav on Monday met EC officials here and claimed the ‘bicycle’, saying he was still the party president, hence, entitled to the symbol.
Ramgopal Yadav, a senior party leader who represents chief minister Akhilesh’s faction, will plead his case on Tuesday.
Mulayam was on Sunday ousted by CM-son Akhilesh who took control of the SP at an “emergency national convention”.
In his 40-minute meeting with chief election commissioner Nasim Zaidi and other panel members, the 77-year-old Mulayam said Ramgopal stood expelled and couldn’t take decisions on behalf of the party.
The election symbol is the first recognition of a political party. In a country where illiteracy is a high, a sizable chunk of voters rely on party symbols while voting. Voting machines, too, carry symbols along with candidates’ names.
There have been several occasions when a split has forced a change of name and symbol.
The latest instance was in December 2011 when the Uttarakhand Kranti Dal, a recognised state party, split. Both factions laid claim to the symbol -- a chair -- but with elections in January, the EC didn’t have the time to verify signatures and majority claims.
It approved Uttarakhand Kranti Dal(P) as the name and a cup and saucer as the symbol for the group led by Trivender Singh Pawar.
The group led by Diwakar Bhatt named itself Jantantrik Uttarakhand Kranti Dal, with a kite as its symbol.
In 1969, the Indian National Congress split into the Congress (O) led by the old guard and the Congress (R) led by former prime minister Indira Gandhi.
The old guard was allowed to retain the party symbol — a pair of bullocks with a yoke — while Gandhi chose a cow suckling a calf as the party symbol.
The Congress’ current symbol — hand — was picked after Gandhi parted ways from the Congress (R) in 1977 to set up New Congress (I).
Any signs of a revival in credit could ease some of the worries from the government move, which sparked a severe cash shortage and paralysed parts of Asia’s third largest economy.
Although India’s gross domestic product grew 7.3 percent in the July-September quarter from the year earlier, the fastest pace of growth among large economies, much of that was led by consumer demand.
(With agency inputs)
The government too cited provisions in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, to stop the compulsory charge.
“We will review the decision. We have been levying a service charge and our guests preferred that because it stopped the practice of some staff member standing around for tips,” said Meena Bhatia, Le Meridien hotel’s marketing and operations vice president.
Until then, the board’s seniormost vice president and jointsecretary will be in charge.
Reacting to the Supreme Court order, BCCI’s Thakur said, “For me, it was not a personal battle but for the autonomy of the sports body. If Supreme Court feels BCCI would do better under retired judges then I wish them all the best, I am sure they will do well.”
But, the bench said Thakur had by his “actions” and “conduct” rendered himself unfit to continue as BCCI president.
As per his own version, the court noted, Thakur was “incapable” of implementing the judicial order because the state associations were non-co-operative.
“This is indicative of his having washed his hands off a duty and obligation to ensure compliance.”
Mixing religion with State power is not permissible while freedom to practice, profess and propagate religion of one’s choice is guaranteed. The State... will not identify itself with any one of the religions or religious denominations