A bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar asked the judicial magistrate-first class to proceed in "accordance with law" in the matter in which the lower court had sought the presence of officials of TII, Centre for Media Studies (CMS) and others to respond to the show cause notices issued against them earlier.
The matter relates to a report of a survey conducted by the global anti-corruption NGO and on the basis of which a Jammu and Kashmir-based newspaper had published an article on alleged corruption in lower judiciary in the state.
The bench agreed with the contention of senior counsel Jayant Bhushan, representing TII and CMS, and said the judicial magistrate had "absolutely no jurisdiction" to pass the order to ensure presence of the petitioners before it.
"We, however, are satisfied in accepting the arguments that the judicial magistrate has absolutely no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order whereby it attempted to enforce presence of the petitioners...In order to respond to the first order dated May 4, 2006," the bench said.
was not competent to initiate contempt proceedings against them as he only had the power to refer it to the high court.
He said the order initiating contempt proceeding was beyond the jurisdiction of judicial magistrate and "at best he could have made a reference to the high court".
Bhushan said that both TII and CMS had responded to the show cause notices but they had not appeared before the court.
He also argued that TII as well as CMS were not at all connected with the newspaper or its publisher and they had not even seen the news article on the basis of which the lower court had initiated action against them.
"We may clarify that the term 'of a subordinate court' used in section 15(2) of the 1997 Act could well contemplate a situation where simultaneously contempt is committed for more than one count and in such an eventuality, any such court can take action and make reference to the high court," the bench said.
The judicial magistrate had passed order under provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1997 and under various provisions of the Ranbir Penal Code, including 499 and 500 (criminal defamation), against TII, CMS and others.
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
