- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Court On Its Own Motion v. M.K Tayal & Ors Contemnors.
Factual and Procedural Background
On 21.5.2007, Senior Advocate Sh. R.K. Anand placed before the Court a copy of the newspaper Mid Day dated 18.5.2007, alleging a scandalous article maligning the former Chief Justice of India and tending to lower the image of the judiciary. The Court, being prima facie of the view that the publication did tend to lower the image of the judiciary, issued show cause notices to Sh. M.K. Tayal (Editor, Mid Day), Mrs. Vitusha Oberoi and Mr. S.K. Akhtar (its Printer and Publisher).
On 25.5.2007, another copy of Mid Day dated 19.5.2007 was filed by Sh. R.K. Anand containing a cartoon by Mr. Md. Irfaan Khan which the Court considered also aimed at lowering the image of the judiciary; a show cause notice was issued to Mr. Md. Irfaan Khan as well.
After service of notices, the contemnors filed affidavits asserting as a defence that statements in the publications were true (alleging that sons of the former Chief Justice benefited from certain orders and operated businesses from the official residence). The Court heard extensive arguments (including submissions by Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate) and examined the publications and affidavits. The Court held the named persons guilty of contempt of court and listed the matter for hearing on sentence on September 21, 2007.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the articles and cartoon in Mid Day tended to lower the image of the judiciary and thus constituted contempt of court.
- Whether truth, in the form presented by the contemnors (allegations concerning benefits to the sons of the former Chief Justice and use of official residence), operates as a permissible defence to the charge of scandalising the judiciary in this context.
- Whether criticism or attack directed at a former Chief Justice of India, after he has ceased to be in office, can be treated as denigrating the authority of the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Conemnors' Arguments
- The publications focus on the Ex-Chief Justice of India after he had ceased to be in office and therefore cannot be termed as denigrating the authority of the Supreme Court.
- Propriety required that the Chief Justice should not have been on the Bench which passed certain orders concerning sealing of properties; the press was entitled to expose impropriety or corruption at the highest level.
- The material on record demonstrates that the sons of the former Chief Justice were beneficiaries of sealing of commercial premises and were operating businesses from the official residence.
- The contemnors contended that what was published was the truth, which they asserted is a permissible defence; they stated they were not challenging the correctness of the Supreme Court's orders but alleging impropriety by the presiding member of the Bench.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Haridas Das v. Smt. Usha Rani Banik & Ors.; Civil Appeal No. 7948 of 2004 | Laid down the 'Laxman rekha' boundary concerning publications that scandalise or denigrate the judiciary. | The Court held that the publications in Mid Day had crossed the 'Laxman rekha' identified in Haridas Das and therefore amounted to contempt affecting the institution. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court proceeded in the following steps based on the material before it:
- The Court examined the newspaper article (dated 18.5.2007) and the cartoon (dated 19.5.2007) and was prima facie of the view that the publications tended to lower the image of the judiciary; show cause notices were accordingly issued to the Editor, Publisher/Printer, Resident Editor and the cartoonist.
- After receipt of affidavits and hearing detailed submissions (including those of Mr. Shanti Bhushan), the Court considered the contemnors' defence that the publications were true and that exposing alleged impropriety in a former Chief Justice was within the journalistic duty.
- The Court analysed the manner of presentation and found that the publications projected the incidence as though the Supreme Court had permitted itself to be led into fulfilling an ulterior motive of one of its members; this, in the Court's assessment, did not merely single out a retired judge but tarnished the image of the Supreme Court as an institution and risked eroding public confidence.
- The Court reasoned that imputing a motive to the presiding member of a Bench effectively casts the other members as either complicit or passive ("dummies"), which is particularly disturbing for public perception of the institution.
- Relying on existing case law, specifically Haridas Das (which identifies the 'Laxman rekha'), the Court concluded that the publications had transgressed the boundary set for permissible criticism and amounted to contempt of court.
Holding and Implications
The Court held Mr. M.K. Tayal (Editor, Mid Day), Mr. S.K. Akhtar (Publisher), Mrs. Vitusha Oberoi (Resident Editor) and Mr. Md. Irfaan Khan (Cartoonist) guilty of contempt of court.
Direct consequences: The matter was listed for hearing on the question of sentence on September 21, 2007, and the contemnors were ordered to be present on that date to be heard on sentence.
The opinion does not discuss broader legal implications beyond the direct finding of contempt; it applied existing precedent (Haridas Das) rather than announcing a new legal principle or precedent.
R.S Sodhi, J.— On 21.5.2007, a Senior Advocate of this Court, Sh. R.K Anand, placed before us a copy of the Newspaper “Mid Day” dated 18.5.2007 (Friday) in which he alleged that a scandalous article maligning the former Chief Justice of India and tending to lower the image of the judiciary in the eyes of common man has been published. The Newspaper was placed before us and we, on going through the news item, were prima facie of the view that the publication did tend to lower the image of the judiciary in the eyes of public. Consequently, we issued show cause notice to Sh. M.K Tayal, Editor, Mid Day, Mr. Vitusha Oberoi and Mr. S.K Akhtar, its Printer and Publisher.
2. On 25.5.2007, Sh. R.K Anand, learned Senior Advocate filed yet another copy of the Newspaper “Mid Day” dated 19.5.2007 which carried a cartoon by Mr. Md. Irfaan Khan, Cartoonist. The cartoon depicted the former Chief Justice of India in his robes holding a bag with currency flowing out. It also depicted a man sitting on the side walk saying “Help! The mall is in your court” which we thought was also aimed at lowering the image of the judiciary. Consequently, we issued show cause notice to Mr. Md. Irfaan Khan also.
3. Upon notice being served, the contemnors have filed their affidavits in which they have taken up a defence that sons of the former Chief Justice of India have benefited by orders made by the Supreme Court and that they were operating their businesses from the official residence of Justice Y.K Sabharwal. They claimed that whatever has been stated in the publications is the truth which, according to them, is a permissible defence.
4. We have carefully gone through the affidavits filed by the contemnors and have heard extensive arguments advanced by Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate. It is contended before us that the attack in the Press is focused on the Ex-Chief Justice of India at a time when he has ceased to be in office and therefore, cannot be termed as denigrating the authority of the Supreme Court. It is contended that propriety demanded that the Chief Justice of India ought not to have been on the Bench which passed orders concerning sealing of properties where non-conforming activities were going on and further that it is the duty of a journalist to expose the corruption in the judiciary at the highest level. He also contends that the material on record is ample proof of the fact that the sons of the former Chief Justice of India were beneficiaries of sealing of commercial premises. Learned counsel further contends that he is not challenging the correctness of the order of the Supreme Court but the order of former Chief Justice of India, who was presiding member of the Bench and who by his impropriety passed orders sealing premises in which commercial activities were being conducted in Delhi in order to benefit his sons’ business.
5. We have carefully gone through the articles published as also the cartoon. We find the manner in which the entire incidence has been projected appears as if the Supreme Court permitted itself to be led into fulfilling an ulterior motive of one of its members. The nature of the revelations and the context in which they appear, though purporting to single out former Chief Justice of India, tarnishes the image of the Supreme Court. It tends to erode the confidence of the general public in the institution itself. The Supreme Court sits in divisions and every order is of a Bench. By imputing motive to its presiding member automatically sends a signal that the other members were dummies or were party to fulfill the ulterior design. This we find most disturbing. There is sufficient case law on the subject and we need hardly add any further material to it. Suffice it to say, the Supreme Court in Haridas Das v. Smt. Usha Rani Banik & Ors.; Civil Appeal No. 7948 of 2004, has clearly laid down the ‘Laxman rekha’ which we feel the publications have crossed. The publications in the garb of scandalizing a retired Chief Justice of India have, in fact, attacked the very institution which, according to us, is nothing short of contempt. We, therefore, hold Mr. M.K Tayal, Editor Mid Day, Mr. S.K Akhtar, Publisher, Mrs. Vitusha Oberoi, Resident Editor and Mr. Md. Irfaan Khan, the Cartoonist, guilty of contempt of court. The matter to be listed on September 21, 2007, when the contemnors shall be present to be heard on the question of sentence.
Alert