The Supreme Court on Tuesday registered a suo motu criminal contempt case against journalist Rajdeep Sardesai for his August 2020 tweets allegedly critiquing the judiciary, according to LiveLaw.
The complaint was filed by petitioner Aastha Khurana. The contempt case was registered five months after Attorney General KK Venugopal refused to initiate criminal proceedings against Sardesai on the basis of the same complaint.
Following Venugopal’s decision in September, the petitioner filed the case in the Supreme Court, which has now been registered as a suo motu complaint on 9 February.
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