SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(SC) 6

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR, CJI., A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.
VITUSAH OBEROI AND ORS. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
COURT OF ITS OWN MOTION – RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1234 OF 2007 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1299 OF 2007
Decided On : 02-01-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :- T.R. Andhyarujina, Sr. Adv. (A.C.), Prashant Bhushan, Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Amit Khemja, Advocates.
For the Respondents:- Ms. C.K. Sucharita, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
High Court cannot initiate proceedings for contempt of the Supreme Court.

Headnote:Constitution of India – Article 215 and 129 r/w section 10, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Publications contemptuous vis-à-vis Supreme Court – No part of publications referring to the High Court of Delhi or any other High Court or any Judge or any order of any Court subordinate to the High Court of Delhi – High Court of Delhi initiating contempt proceeding – Not competent to initiate proceeding for contempt of Supreme Court – Supreme Court itself competent under Article 129 to punish for contempt of itself – Proceedings beyond jurisdiction. (Para 7, 11)

       (1991) 4 SCC 406 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       Appellants No.1 and 2 are the Editor and City Editor respectively of Mid Day, an English Daily Newspaper, with a large circulation in the National Capital Region. Appellant No.3 happens to be the Printer and Publisher of the papers while appellant No.4 is a Cartoonist working for the said paper.

       A story appeared in `Mid Day' in its issue dated 2nd May, 2007 under the title "Injustice". The substance of the publication brought to light the alleged misuse of the official residence of Justice Sabharwal who demitted office as Chief Justice of India on 13th January, 2007, by the same being shown as the registered office of three companies promoted by Justice Sabharwal's sons. A second story published on 18th May, 2007 in Mid Day pointed out that Justice Sabharwal's son had entered into a partnership with shopping malls and commercial complex developers just before Justice Sabharwal passed orders for sealing of commercial establishments running in residential areas in different parts of Delhi. This, according to the story, benefitted the partnership business of Justice Sabharwal's sons. On 19th May, 2007 came a third story that quoted some senior lawyer's saying that if the facts about Justice Sabharwal's sons' partnership business benefitting from the orders of Justice Sabharwal's Bench were true, then Justice Sabharwal should not have heard the case. The paper also carried in the same issue a cartoon by Mohd. Irfan Khan, appellant No.4 showing as if Justice Sabharwal's family had benefitted from the orders passed by Justice Sabharwal's Bench.

       Shri R.K. Anand, an advocate practicing in Delhi High Court placed a copy of the newspaper dated 18th May, 2007 before a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi on 21st May, 2007.

       Prima facie satisfied that the news item was objectionable and tended to lower the image of judiciary in the eyes of the common man, the High Court initiated suo-motu contempt proceedings and issued show cause notices to appellants No.1 to 3.

       On 25th May, 2007 Shri Anand filed another copy of Mid Day newspaper dated 19th May, 2007 before the High Court which carried the cartoon drawn by the appellant No.4, the paper's cartoonist.

       The High Court found the same also to be objectionable and issued notice even to appellant No.4 to show cause why contempt proceedings may not be initiated against him.

       The appellants filed their objections supported by affidavits.

       The explanation offered by the appellants notwithstanding, the High Court has by the order impugned in these appeals found the appellants guilty of contempt and directed them to remain present in person for being heard on the question of quantum of sentence that may be awarded to them.

       Finding of the Court:

       Delhi High Court could not initiate proceedings for contempt of the Supreme Court.

       Result: Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

T.S. Thakur, CJI.

In these appeals, the appellants call in question the correctness of an order dated 11th September, 2007 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi whereby the appellants have been found guilty of contempt and directed to remain present in person before the High Court for being heard on the quantum of sentence to be awarded to them. Facts necessary for appreciating the challenge mounted by the appellants may be summarized as under:

2. Appellants No.1 and 2 are the Editor and City Editor respectively of Mid Day, an English Daily Newspaper, with a large circulation in the National Capital Region. Appellant No.3 happens to be the Printer and Publisher of the papers while appellant No.4 is a Cartoonist working for the said paper. The genesis of the suo motu contempt proceedings initiated by the High Court of Delhi lies in a story that appeared in `Mid Day' in its issue dated 2nd May, 2007 under the title "Injustice". The substance of the publication brought to light the alleged misuse of the official residence of Justice Sabharwal who demitted office as Chief Justice of India on 13th January, 2007, by the same being shown as the registered office of three companies promoted by Justice Sabharwal's sons. A second story published on 18th May, 2007 in Mid Day pointed out that Justice Sabharwal's son had entered into a partnership with shopping malls and commercial complex developers just before Justice Sabharwal passed orders for sealing of commercial establishments running in residential areas in different parts of Delhi. This, according to the story, benefitted the partnership business of Justice Sabharwal's sons. On 19th May, 2007 came a third story that quoted some senior lawyer's saying that if the facts about Justice Sabharwal's sons' partnership business benefitting from the orders of Justice Sabharwal's Bench were true, then Justice Sabharwal should not have heard the case. The paper also carried in the same issue a cartoon by Mohd. Irfan Khan, appellant No.4 showing as if Justice Sabharwal's family had benefitted from the orders passed by Justice Sabharwal's Bench.

3. It was in the above backdrop that Shri R.K. Anand, an advocate practicing in Delhi High Court appears to have placed a copy of the newspaper dated 18th May, 2007 before a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi on 21st May, 2007 to draw the attention of the Court about the article published in the said paper maligning the former Chief Justice of India and tending to lower the image of the judiciary in the eyes of the common man. Prima facie satisfied that the news item was objectionable and tended to lower the image of judiciary in the eyes of the common man, the High Court initiated suo-motu contempt proceedings and issued show cause notices to appellants No.1 to 3. On 25th May, 2007 Shri Anand appears to have filed another copy of Mid Day newspaper dated 19th May, 2007 before the High Court which carried the cartoon drawn by the appellant No.4, the paper's cartoonist. The High Court found the same also to be objectionable and issued notice even to appellant No.4 to show cause why contempt proceedings may not be initiated against him.

4. In response to the notices served upon them, the appellants filed their objections supported by affidavits. In the affidavit filed by appellant No.1-Editor of Mid-day it was, inter alia, stated that all the facts published in the paper were supported by unimpeachable documents and were true. A supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant No.1 gave some more details about a company promoted by Justice Sabharwal's sons and the documents relevant thereto. An affidavit sworn by appellant No.4, the cartoonist was also filed explaining his position. This was followed by additional affidavits filed by the appellants on 21st August, 2007 in which the appellants tried to justify their publications on the ground that the said publications were intended to bring to light an impropriety commit

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top