NEW DELHI, 29 September 2007 — The Supreme Court yesterday stayed the arrest of four journalists of Mid-Day, who have been sentenced to four months imprisonment by the Delhi High Court for their alleged defamatory reports about former Chief Justice of India Y.K. Sabharwal.
A two-judge bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and P. Sathasivam also admitted an appeal by Mid-Day against the lower court judgment of Sept. 21. The Supreme Court said it was appointing senior counsel and former Additional Solicitor General A.R. Andhiarjuna as amicus curiae.
The four, M.K. Tayal (editor of Mid-Day), S.K. Akhtar (the then publisher), Vitusha Oberoi (resident editor) and Irfan (cartoonist) had been found guilty of contempt of court for a series of articles published in May. The controversial articles alleged that Justice Sabharwal’s order on the issue of unauthorized constructions had been passed for the benefit of his sons who were engaged in real estate business.
Senior advocate Shanti Bhushan, arguing the journalists’ case, said the high court’s order was “unjustified and unreasonable” because “truth is an explicit defense under the Contempt of Court Act.”
In a special leave petition filed before the court, the journalists argued that Mid-Day had published the articles on the basis of documentary evidence. With their petition, the journalists also attached clippings of newspaper reports quoting some former chief justices who had expressed that there should be judicial probe into allegations against Sabharwal.
The Supreme Court, however, rejected an application moved by a group of 27 prominent citizens who had pleaded that they be meted out the same punishment awarded to the four journalists. Describing the stand taken by the high court as “erroneous and antithetical to the fundamental principles of our republican democracy and our constitution,” the applicants argued that conviction of the four journalists was an assault on the freedom of speech. It would send wrong signals to the people, they said.
The controversial articles published by Mid-Day had criticized a ruling passed by Sabharwal ordering demolition of scores of illegal shops and commercial buildings in Delhi. The reports alleged that the order benefited business interests of Sabharwal’s sons. Sabharwal has denied the allegations.
With a provision in the law of contempt of court against attempt to defame judges and tarnish the image of the judiciary, the Delhi High Court had said while awarding the sentence: “They (journalists) have attacked the very institution (judiciary) which, according to us, is nothing short of contempt.”
Rather than accepting the high court’s judgment meekly, the media are building a movement questioning this law. The Editors’ Guild of India, a group of senior newspaper editors, is likely to meet soon to press for a change in India’s contempt laws to protect journalists.
Describing the high court order as harsh, Delhi’s journalists also took out a silent protest march from the Press Club to the Supreme Court.
Expressing support for Mid-Day journalists, Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee said: “I have the highest regard for the judiciary but if someone thinks that the judiciary is above any criticism, then it is an unacceptable situation in a democracy. We cannot be guided by any form of dictatorship — either of the legislature or the executive or the army or the judiciary.”
Supporting the need for an investigation into allegations against Sabharwal, Janata Dal-United President Sharad Yadav said: “The Supreme Court should order a probe. If that does not happen, the center should initiate a CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) inquiry.”
