Apology will discourage whistleblowers: channel

Arguing that an apology would dent the confidence of prospective whistleblowers, the channel, through senior counsel Arun Jaitley, portrayed the sting as a sincere attempt to unearth corruption and not a shot at cheap publicity.

Jaitley, arguing before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan, said the primary focus of the court ought to be on how such an apology, if given, would affect a person desiring to expose malpractice.

Giving the channel scribe who participated in the sting the role of a “whistleblower”, the counsel maintained the “intention was to expose a corrupt practice”.

“I (reporter) was a whistleblower. Here the issue is how the court will deal with whistleblowers,” argued Jaitley.

“Do not take an adverse stand (in this case),” he added, re-affirming the sting was carried out without the intention to tarnish the image of judiciary. “The court had taken a positive stand in the ‘Kamala case’ of 1970,” he said, referring to a story run by The Indian Express at the time, narrating how a reporter “bought” a woman “up for sale as a prostitute” to bring to light the underbelly of prostitution rackets.

The Bench, however, countered that a single operation allegedly showing malpractice did not necessarily mean that corruption was galore in the judiciary.

The sting operation christened “Cash-for-Warrant Scam” carried out by Zee TV allegedly showed three advocates of Ahmedabad, on payment of Rs 40,000, securing bailable warrants against then President A P J Abdul Kalam, Chief Justice of India V N Khare, apex court Judge Justice B P Singh and senior counsel late R K Jain.

The bailable warrants were issued on January 15, 2004 by Metropolitan Magistrate of Meghaninagar Court of Ahmedabad, M S Brahm Bhatt, on the basis of a fictitious complaint.

Vijay Shekar, the reporter concerned, then filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the apex court seeking CBI inquiry into the alleged corruption in the lower judiciary, exposed by the operation.

A CBI inquiry initiated by the orders of the apex court resulted in the filing of a chargesheet against the three lawyers. The magistrate underwent a two-year suspension from service, but was re-instated after getting a clean chit.