SC quashes contempt action against 4 scribes by Delhi HC

In a relief for four journalists whom the Delhi High Court had held guilty of contempt in 2007 for articles in a tabloid about former Chief Justice of India Y K Sabharwal, the Supreme Court today set aside the verdict holding that it 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 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.
While giving relief to the journalists, the apex court
said,"The availability of the power under Article 129 and its plenitude is yet another reason why Article 215 could never have been intended to empower the High Courts to punish for the contempt of the Supreme Court.

"The logic is simple. If Supreme Court does not, despite the availability of the power vested in it, invoke the same to punish for its contempt, there is no question of a court subordinate to the Supreme Court doing so."
"Viewed from any angle, the order passed by the High Court appears to us to be without jurisdiction, hence, liable to be set aside," it said.
Tabloid Mid-Day had in May 2007 done some articles on the alleged misuse of official residence of Justice Sabharwal, who demitted office as Chief Justice of India on January 13, 2007, as the accommodation was shown as the registered office of three companies promoted by the judge's sons.

One of the articles also alleged that one of Justice Sabharwal's sons had entered into a partnership with shopping malls and commercial complex developers just before he passed orders for sealing of commercial establishments running in residential areas in different parts of Delhi. This, according to the story, benefited the partnership business of Justice Sabharwal's sons.
The third article, in the same month, quoted some senior lawyers, saying that if the facts about Justice Sabharwal's sons' partnership business benefiting from the orders of judge's bench were true, then he should not have heard the case.
The paper also carried in the same issue a cartoon showing as if Justice Sabharwal's family had benefited from the orders passed by his bench.

Prima facie satisfied that the news items were objectionable and tended to lower the image of judiciary in the eyes of the common man, the Delhi High Court had initiated suo-motu contempt proceedings and issued show cause notices to the four journalists, the apex court noted in its judgement.