Mid Day’s journalists have been sentenced to four months imprisonment. The order is bad in law. It is also bad public policy. The initial protagonist is R.K. Anand, who brought the ‘contempt’ to the notice of the court. Anand himself is entangled in a ‘contempt’ over obstructing justice. Justices R.S. Sodhi and B.N. Chaturvedi issued notices in contempt — convicting on September 11, 2007, in a barely reasoned order with heavy sentences being imposed 10 days later. This judgment will go down as one of the worst judgments on constructive contempt ever since Justice Wilmot created the modern law of contempt in 1765, whereby judges became custodians of the arbitrary contempt power through summary justice.

If the object of the order (it can hardly be termed as a judgment) was to enhance the standing of the judiciary, it fails miserably. In fact, the judgment lowers the reputation of the judiciary — suggesting that the judiciary does not welcome criticism of itself; and will smash its bona fide critics with punitive imprisonment. Will the press be silent? No. It will continue to report on the controversy with greater coverage and intensity. Can the entire media be put in jail? No. It is not clear what the judges had in mind in response to this selective targeting by lawyer Anand.

What was at issue? A campaign had been started by the Commission for Judicial Accountability (CJA) by the Bhushan and Bhushan team et al asking for an explanation as to why a business was shifted to Justice Sabharwal’s residence (however temporarily) at a time when the Supreme Court was considering a large-scale demolition ordered by the Justice Sabharwal bench for land use violations. A further speculation was raised that the ultimate beneficiaries of the demolition would be Sabharwal’s sons whose investments in malls would be enhanced. There were also allegations of the UP government selling land to the Sabharwal family at reduced prices. Justice Sabharwal answered this by stating his lack of knowledge about the business being run from his house and denying the speculation. True or false, this information was in the public domain. When the House of Lords injuncted the publication of the globally available book Spycatcher in England, the Daily Mirror ran a banner headline: “You fools”. English courts accepted the media’s verdict. No contempt notices were issued.

... contd.