Nine years after they were hauled up for contempt and in a relief for four journalists whom the Delhi High Court had held guilty of contempt in 2007 for articles in Mid-Day, a tabloid about former Chief Justice of India Y K Sabharwal, the Supreme Court on Monday, January 2, set aside the verdict passed by the Delhi High Court holding journalists guilty of contempt of the Supreme Court. This judgement was passed yesterday. The SC held that the Delhi HC exceeded its jurisdiction in dealing with the contempt of a superior court. A bench of Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justice A M Khanwilkar said the high court did not have the jurisdiction to pass such an order as it was not empowered to punish for the contempt of a superior court which itself was not invoking such power despite being vested with it.
The bench said the apex court itself was empowered under Article 129 of the Constitution to punish for its contempt and, if it did not invoke this power, there is no question of a court subordinate to it, like the high court, doing so.
“There is, from a plain reading of the above, 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 suo-motu or otherwise for the contempt of a superior court like the Supreme Court of India.
The four journalists were subjected to a suo moto contempt of court case by the Delhi High Court against a story that appeared in daily ‘Mid-Day’ on May 2, 2007, titled “Injustice”. The court had held the editor and other staff members guilty of contempt.
The article had alleged misuse of the official residence of Justice Sabharwal who demitted office as Chief Justice of India on January 13, 2007, by the same being shown as the registered office of three companies promoted by Justice Sabharwal’s sons. A second story published on May 18, 2007, in Mid-Day pointed out that Sabharwal’s son had entered into a partnership with shopping malls and commercial complex developers just before Sabharwal passed orders for sealing of commercial 2 Page 3 establishments running in residential areas in different parts of Delhi.
This, according to the story, benefitted the partnership business of Sabharwal’s sons. On May 19, 2007, a third story that quoted some senior lawyer’s saying that if the facts about Sabharwal’s sons’ partnership business benefitting from the orders Sabharwal’s bench were true, then Sabharwal should not have heard the case.
“The power to punish for contempt vested in a Court of Record under Article 215 does not, however, extend to punishing for the contempt of a superior court. Such a power has never been recognised as an attribute of a court of record nor has the same been specifically conferred upon the High Courts under Article 215,” the bench said in its 14-page judgement allowing the appeals of the four journalists.
The apex court delivered its verdict on the petition filed by the four journalists of the now defunct Delhi tabloid against the High Court’s decision of taking suo-motu cognizance of the articles to initiate contempt action against them.
They had moved the apex court pending the hearing in the High Court which had on September 11, 2007 directed them to be present before it for pronouncement of quantum of sentence.
During the pendency of the appeal, the apex court had stayed the proceedings before the High Court.