'Inadvertent mistake': SC clarifies no contempt case registered against journalist Rajdeep Sardesai
The Supreme Court website previously showed that it had registered a suo motu criminal contempt case against the journalist in connection with his tweets critiquing the judiciary in August 2020
The Supreme Court on Tuesday late night clarified that its website "inadvertently" showed that a suo motu contempt case against journalist Rajdeep Sardesai for his tweets has been registered, reports PTI.
"This is in context with the news item being flashed in some news channels about initiating suo motu criminal contempt proceeding against Rajdeep Sardesai by the Supreme Court, it is made clear that no such proceeding has been initiated against Rajdeep Sardesai."
"However, the status shown at the Supreme Court's website vide case no. SMC (Crl) 02/2021 has been placed inadvertently. Appropriate action to rectify the same is under process," Supreme Court Deputy Registrar (public relation) Rakesh Sharma said.
Earlier, the news with regard to the suo motu contempt case against Sardesai was carried in the media based on the information available on the top court's website.
The Supreme Court website previously showed that it had registered a suo motu criminal contempt case against journalist Rajdeep Sardesai in connection with his tweets critiquing the judiciary in August 2020.
The complaint was reportedly filed by petitioner Aastha Khurana. Khurana, who hails from Panipat in Haryana, had highlighted multiple tweets by Sardesai to buttress her case for initiation of contempt proceedings against the journalist, reports Bar & Bench.
The petitioner referred to tweets by journalist’s posted on Twitter in July and August. The tweets from August pertain to remarks on the contempt case of lawyer Prashant Bhushan where he was fined Re 1.
Breaking: Rs 1 token fine imposed by SC on @pbhushan1 in contempt case.. if he doesn’t pay it, then 3 months jail sentence! Clearly, court looking to wriggle out of an embarrassment of its own making.
— Rajdeep Sardesai (@sardesairajdeep) August 31, 2020
Breaking: @pbhushan1 held guilty of contempt by SC, sentence to be pronounced on August 20.. this even as habeas corpus petitions of those detained in Kashmir for more than a year remain pending! 🙏
— Rajdeep Sardesai (@sardesairajdeep) August 14, 2020
Khurana also referred to older tweets in which Sardesai allegedly cast aspersions on Justice Arun Mishra, who had heard Prashant Bhushan’s contempt case, and former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, the Bar & Bench reported.
and then one of the judges tells me last week that the Ayodhya case is not political!! Would the CJI go to Kashmir too before tackling article 370 case? You are the CJI Mr Gogoi, not the DGP!! Not yet at least! https://t.co/ilwAWRCVBD
— Rajdeep Sardesai (@sardesairajdeep) November 8, 2019
The plea sought an order initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent/contemnor for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the orders/judgements passed by the top court and to punish the respondent/contemnor in accordance with the law.
On 17 September, last year, the Attorney General while declining the consent to initiate contempt action has said, "I have gone through the tweets as well as the contents of your contempt petition in some details. The petition adverts to five tweets allegedly published by Shri Sardesai on his Twitter page. I am proceeding on the basis that the tweets referred to have in fact made."
"I have given careful consideration to the tweets. I find that the statements made by Shri Sardesai are not of so serious nature as to undermine the majesty of the Supreme Court or lower its stature in the minds of the public. The imputation of the Supreme Court as one of the great pillars of our democracy has been built assiduously over the last 70 years. Trifling remarks and mere passing criticism though perhaps distasteful are unlikely to tarnish the image of the institution", Venugopal had said in a letter written to Parihar.
The consent of either the Attorney General or the Solicitor General is necessary, under section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for initiating contempt proceedings against a person.
With inputs from PTI
Subscribe to Moneycontrol Pro at ₹499 for the first year. Use code PRO499. Limited period offer. *T&C apply
Disagreeing with govt can't be seditious, says SC; dismisses PIL demanding action against Farooq Abdullah
The top court was hearing a plea which referred to Abdullah's statement on restoring Article 370, which gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir, and contended it clearly amounts to a seditious act and therefore he is liable to be punished under Section 124-A of the IPC
The nation's highest court delivered a blow to the ex-president, who has been waging a protracted legal battle to prevent his tax records from being handed over to Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance
The apex court said the proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) will go on and but will not culminate into any final order on an amalgamation of FRL with Reliance