A bench of Justices S Muralidhar and I S Mehta said the "mischievous innuendo", posted by Swaminathan Gurumurthy, the editor of 'Thuglak'magazine, within a few hours of the court's March 9 order in the INX media case, immediately invited responses which "spread the misinformation in the innuendo several times over, not sparing the judge presiding over the matter,nor the judiciary".
The bench also noted that despite tweets by others in response to the innuendo and clarifying the correct position, "he (editor) cared not to withdraw the mischievous and false tweet".
The editor had posed a question as to whether Justice Muralidhar, who was part of the bench which had passed the order granting protection to Karti Chidambaram, was a junior of former UPA minister and senior advocate P Chidambaram.
The court, which took suo motu cognisance of the issue, said while it was conscious that such tweets were "ill informed" and "are best ignored", but since the person in question was an editor of a popular magazine having over 259,000 followers, it considered it appropriate to place the correct information.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Karti, said even he has been subjected to abuses and threats on the twitter for which there has been often no recourse. He said such social media activity should not be ignored but a stern message sent.
In its March 9 order, the high court had also made it clear that if the special court granted Karti bail in the corruption case registered by the CBI, the ED will not arrest him till the next hearing before the high court on March 20.
The court also dismissed his appeal for an urgent hearing on his bail plea after which he moved the high court seeking bail. He was being quizzed by the CBI for the last 12 days since his arrest on February 28. His bail plea will be heard tomorrow by the high court.
He had approached the apex court seeking directions to declare that the ED has no jurisdiction to conduct any investigation unrelated to the allegations in the FIR lodged by the CBI on May 15, 2017.
He had also sought the quashing of summons and all the proceedings initiated by the ED, terming it "unreasonable, without jurisdiction, without authority of law, in colourable exercise of power and vitiated by malafides".
The ED had registered a case against him and others in May last year.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
