Contempt of What ?

On 21^st of September The New Delhi High Court sentenced 4 journalists from the Mid-Day daily, to 4 months jail term, for apparent ‘contempt of court’. The contempt was established on the basis of a May 19 cartoon in Mid-day that brought up a conflict of interest discussion about the Chief Justice of India passing judgments in a land sealing case, the judgments that might have benefited his sons.The resident editor Vitusha Oberoi, city editor MK Tayal, publisher AK Akhtar and cartoonist Irfan Khan were the four journalists who, by the way of a cartoon, showed that the x-chief justice had vested interests in ordering the Dehli sealing.A bench comprising Justice Sodhi and Justice B N Chaturvadi said, “As they neither seek an apology nor do they opt to argue and reiterate their stand which has tarnished the image of the highest court, a four month imprisonment would serve the ends of justice”. The Bench said that the publications actually attacked the very institution which is nothing short of contempt. The bench also rejected the argument that after retirement the judge ceased to be a part of the judicial system and writing against him does not tantamount to the contempt of court and held that the nature of the disclosures though quoting the former CJI hurts the image of the Highest Court of the land.But allegations made against an individual, whatever his official position are generally not interpreted as an act of defamation against an entire fraternity of vocation under the law. No case has ever been recorded against the publication of charges against politicians, IAS, IFS and the IPS etc amounted to defaming an entire profession or cadre. And in this case also the court acted on suo-motu cognizance i.e it acted on its own. Arguing the journalists’ case, senior advocate Shanti Bhushan said the high court’s order is “unjustified and unreasonable” because “truth is an explicit defense under the Contempt of Court Act”.The journalists said they had ample evidence to prove their charges but the high court judges felt “the publications, in the garb of scandalizing a retired Chief Justice of India, have in fact, attacked the very institution” and “is nothing short of contempt”. The court did not allow the four to try and prove the allegations in the story, effectively saying that whether the allegations were true did not matter; by writing about the case the paper had “lowered the dignity of the Supreme Court in the eyes of the public”. But in 2006, The Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice had accepted the Centre’s move to make `truth’ as defence in the Contempt of Court law in public interest. Parliament amended the Contempt of Courts Act (CCA) to introduce Section 13(b), which states: “The courts may permit, in any proceedings for contempt of court, justification by truth as a valid defence if it is satisfied that it is in public interest and the request for invoking the said defence is bona fide.”  Stating that the object of this amendment was to introduce fairness in procedure and meet the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. According to this law, the journalists had the right to present their truth as evidence, but the court did not allow the four to try and prove the allegations in the story. The court said that whether the allegations were true did not matter; by writing about the case the paper had “lowered the dignity of the Supreme Court in the eyes of the public”.But in contempt of court the judges are the ones who undertake the trail , who accuse a person of contempt and the ones who give the verdict. In other words it is like a case of deformation in which a group of people stand against an institution, knowing that the final verdict will be given by the institution only. In such a case truth as evidence, if not accepted, will make the judiciary unapproachable.Although Contempt of court is a court ruling which, in the context of a court trial or hearing, deems an individual as holding contempt for the court, its process, and its invested powers, which may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behavior, or publication of material deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial. Without the protection of truth as evidence against contempt, the press will never be in a position to expose the ill doings of the judiciary.

Tags: contempt, courts, India, journalism, law