Tarnishing the image?
Facts and documentation in the case of retd. Chief justice of
A landmark case is pitting the institution of the Supreme Court of India against the right of journalists to probe allegations against a former chief justice. On September 21 the Delhi High Court sentenced two journalists, a cartoonist and the publisher of afternoon tabloid Mid-Day to four months imprisonment each for contempt of court for publishing unsubstantiated news reports against former chief justice Y.K. Sabharwal. All four were then released on bail. The case will now go to the Supreme Court.
A division bench of Justices R.S. Sodhi and B.N. Chaturvedi said: "We feel, in this peculiar case, the contemnors have tarnished the image of the highest court, and sentence of four months` imprisonment would serve the end of justice."
Those sentenced include resident editor Vitusha Oberoi, city editor M.K. Tayal, publisher A.K. Akhtar and cartoonist Irfan.
They had alleged in news reports May 19 that Justice Sabharwal, as the chief justice, had passed orders, during the sealing of commercial property in the capital, that favoured his sons, who are close associates of mall developers.
As ordered by the Supreme Court Wednesday on their plea, all were released on bail after furnishing bail bonds.
On Sep 11, the court had held them guilty, saying that they had crossed the "Laxman Rekha" by publishing scandalous articles about Justice Sabharwal.
"The publications, in the garb of scandalising a retired chief justice of
The court rejected the contention of the daily, which had submitted that a judge, after retiring, ceases to be part of the judicial system and writing against him did not come within the ambit of contempt of court.
"The nature of the revelations and the context in which they appear, though purporting to single out the former chief justice of
Senior counsel and former law minister Shanti Bhushan, who represented the journalists, contended that the material on record had ample proof of the fact that Sabharwal`s sons were indeed beneficiaries during the sealing of commercial premises in the capital. (IANS)
Further documentation:
Indian Express Editorial, September 22:
Judges and citizens
If an ex-judge is aggrieved by a report, he can sue for libel. Why bring in the notion of contempt?
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/219546.html
Photographs and reactions published by Mid Day, September 22.
Court unquote
By: Y K Sabharwal
http://www.mid-day.com/news/city/2007/september/164407.htm
Contempt for the pen
Times of
The document issued by Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Judicial Reforms (CJAJR), on September 19:
Justice Sabharwal finally broke his silence in a signed piece in the Times of India. His defence proceeds by ignoring and sidestepping the inconvenient and emphasizing the irrelevant if it can evoke sympathy. To examine the adequacy of his defence, we need to see his defence against the gravamen of each charge against him.
Charge No. 1: That his son¿s companies had shifted their registered offices to his official residence.
Justice Sabharwal¿s response: That as soon as he came to know he ordered his son¿s to shift it back.
CJAJR¿s Rejoinder: This is False. In April 2007, in a recorded interview with the
Charge No. 2: That he called for and dealt with the sealing of commercial property case in March 2005, though it was not assigned to him. It is only the Chief Justice who can assign pending cases to various judges. He was not the CJI at that time. Copy of the order dated
Justice Sabharwal¿s response: Justice Sabharwal does not answer this charge.
Charge No. 3: That he did this exactly around the time that his sons got into partnerships with Mall and commercial complex developers, who stood to benefit from his sealing orders. The chain of events is as follows:
On
Justice Sabharwal¿s response: That they were his sons friends. That Harpawan Constructors, which was set up by his sons with the Mall developer Purshottam Bagheria did not do any business. In fact the courts under him got Bagheria¿s 1 MG road mall demolished. That his sons are not developing shopping malls but only an IT Park.
CJAJR¿s Rejoinder: If so many Mall and commercial complex developers were his sons¿ close friends, then he should not have dealt with the case anyway since that creates an immediate conflict of interest. Moreover, why should they go into partnership with these developers who stood to benefit from Justice Sabharwal¿s orders, and that too exactly at the time when he seizes control of the sealing of commercial property case and starts dealing with it. He says that the company set up by his sons in partnership with Bagheria has not done any business. If so, why was this new company set up for developing commercial complexes in partnership with this builder? In an interview with ZNews Justice Sabhawal claims credit for the judiciary under him ordering the demolition of the illegal 1 MG road mall owned by Bagheria. But then why do his sons enter into partnerships with such an illegal builder whose buildings have had to be demolished by the Judiciary? And immediately after this partnership with the Sabharwals, Bagheria went on to announce the construction of "Square 1 mall" in Saket as the most fashionable mall in
An IT park is also a commercial complex like any other. Many commercial establishments sealed were IT centres and BPOs, which were forced to buy space in, IT parks like that being constructed by his sons and their partners.
Charge No. 4: That the Union Bank of
Justice Sabharwal¿s response: That his sons¿ had a credit facility of 75 crores.
CJAJR¿s Rejoinder: If that were the case, what was the need for mortgaging non-existent assets for obtaining this loan? Moreover, the Banks¿ senior manager is on record saying that the loan was given on the basis of projected sales to prospective customers. The conversation with the Bank Manager is in the CD attached hereto as Annexure I.
Charge No. 5: That because of the obvious conflict of interest, he could not have dealt with this case.
Justice Sabharwal¿s response: That his orders have never benefited his sons.
CJAJR¿s Rejoinder: His orders of sealing lakhs of commercial properties clearly forced those establishments to buy or rent space in commercial complexes like those that his sons¿ companies were constructing; and shopping malls etc that their friends and partners were constructing. There was a clear conflict of interest and his orders have clearly benefited his sons and their partners.
Charge No. 6: That a large number of industrial and commercial plots were allotted in Noida by the UP government to his sons¿ companies, at prices far below the market price. In particular several huge plots were allotted between December 2004 and November 2006 by the Mulayam Singh/Amar Singh government, while he was dealing with Amar Singh¿s tapes case, and had stayed the publication of those tapes on the behest of Amar Singh.
Justice Sabharwal¿s response: That some of the plots were allotted by earlier different governments. That the prices were not far below the market price. That the allotments were made in the normal course to his sons who were entrepreneurs and were providing employment to hundreds of people in Noida.
CJAJR¿s Rejoinder: Even if one were to look at only the last two allotments of 12,000 metres each made in December 2004 and November 2006, made by the Mulayam Singh/Amar Singh governments, it is obvious that the allotments are definitely not in the normal course. Consider the allotment to Pawan Impex. The company has Nil turnover and Nil business (as declared in their application) on the date of application on
Similarly, the huge plot of 3 acres, No. 12 A in Sector 68 alloted to Sabs Exports in November 2006 at a throw away price of Rs. 4000 per square meter is also not in the normal course and was similarly made within days of application and a bogus interview, without any other system. Today, within 10 months of allotment, even the circle rate of plots in Sector 68 is Rs. 8,000 per sq. meter and the market rate is Rs. 20-22,000 per sq. meter. Moreover this allotment has been made at a time when he was dealing with Amar Singh¿s tapes case and had stayed the publication of the tapes.
Charge No. 7: That his sons have purchased a 1150 square meter house in Maharani bagh,
Justice Sabharwal¿s response: That 90 per cent of the money for the purchase of this house was from four banks; that his sons concealed his full name in the sale deed in order to avoid taking advantage of their association with him.
CJAJR¿s Rejoinder: Banks do not normally advance loans of 90% of the value of a property on its security. Otherwise they would end up holding inadequate security if the property prices fall by even 15%. If they have done so in this case, it is either because of an undue favour as in the case of the loan of 28 Crores to Pawan Impex, or they valued the property higher than the declared purchase price. His explanation for concealing his name in the sale deed is hilarious and unbelievable since his sons did not hesitate to use his official residence as the registered office of their companies. Moreover, this was in a registered sale deed with a private party, where there was no occasion for taking any advantage by using his name.
Justice Sabharwal¿s defence in The Times of India, September 2.
A former Chief Justice of
The man who delivered one high-profile judgment after another now finds his integrity being questioned. Since his retirement, Justice Y K Sabharwal has been dogged by rumours and insinuations, with motives being imputed to major rulings by him — including the ones on the sealing drive in