The Supreme Court has registered a suo moto criminal contempt case against journalist Rajdeep Sardesai on a complaint filed by one Aastha Khurana alleging that some of his tweets scandalized judiciary.
In September 2020, the Attorney General for India, KK Venugopal, had refused sanction to initiate criminal contempt on the same complaint.
Following the refusal of the AG's sanction, the petitioner filed a fresh petition directly in the Supreme Court, which was registered as a suo moto criminal contempt case on February 9.
The petitioner referred to a tweet from 31.08.2020, wherein Sardesai had remarked saying "Clearly, court looking to wriggle out of an embarrassment of its own making", in the context of the Re. 1 fine imposed on Prashant Bhushan in his contempt case.
Another tweet from 14.08.2020 was also highlighted wherein it is stated that Sardesai compared the judgment in Prashant Bhushan's case to Habeas Corpus petitions of those detained in Kashmir.
Further reference is made to a tweet which was posted on 23.07.2020 and allegedly cast aspersions on (Retd.) Justice Arun Mishra. Though the tweet was later deleted, elaborates the petition, it received "huge media publicity" and "questioned the fairness" of the Court.
Such attacks on this Hon'ble Court is not a freedom of speech and expression, but it has done purposely in order to defame and disrespect the image of the Court", contends the petitioner.
Also Read - Toolkit Case: Bombay High Court Reserves Orders For Tomorrow On Adv Nikita Jacob's Transit Bail Plea
The Petitioner went on to submit that Sardesai is a "well known personally and various people take his statement as true and correct, therefore his statement on the top judicial body of his country indicates a threat to the society, which will lead to no trust in the judiciary and the justice will never deliver to the people because they will look at this Hon'ble Court with a questionable eye and all the respect of this prestigious institution will vanish."
The Supreme Court has registered a suo moto criminal contempt case against journalist Rajdeep Sardesai on a complaint filed by one Aastha Khurana alleging that some of his tweets scandalized judiciary.
In September 2020, the Attorney General for India, KK Venugopal, had refused sanction to initiate criminal contempt on the same complaint.
The petitioner referred to a tweet from 31.08.2020, wherein Sardesai had remarked saying "Clearly, court looking to wriggle out of an embarrassment of its own making", in the context of the Re. 1 fine imposed on Prashant Bhushan in his contempt case.
Another tweet from 14.08.2020 was also highlighted wherein it is stated that Sardesai compared the judgment in Prashant Bhushan's case to Habeas Corpus petitions of those detained in Kashmir.
Further reference is made to a tweet which was posted on 23.07.2020 and allegedly cast aspersions on (Retd.) Justice Arun Mishra. Though the tweet was later deleted, elaborates the petition, it received "huge media publicity" and "questioned the fairness" of the Court.
Such attacks on this Hon'ble Court is not a freedom of speech and expression, but it has done purposely in order to defame and disrespect the image of the Court", contends the petitioner.
Also Read - Toolkit Case: Bombay High Court Reserves Orders For Tomorrow On Adv Nikita Jacob's Transit Bail Plea
In September 2020, the Attorney General for India, KK Venugopal, had refused sanction to initiate criminal contempt on the same complaint.
Following the refusal of the AG's sanction, the petitioner filed a fresh petition directly in the Supreme Court, which was registered as a suo moto criminal contempt case on February 9.
The petitioner referred to a tweet from 31.08.2020, wherein Sardesai had remarked saying "Clearly, court looking to wriggle out of an embarrassment of its own making", in the context of the Re. 1 fine imposed on Prashant Bhushan in his contempt case.
Another tweet from 14.08.2020 was also highlighted wherein it is stated that Sardesai compared the judgment in Prashant Bhushan's case to Habeas Corpus petitions of those detained in Kashmir.
Further reference is made to a tweet which was posted on 23.07.2020 and allegedly cast aspersions on (Retd.) Justice Arun Mishra. Though the tweet was later deleted, elaborates the petition, it received "huge media publicity" and "questioned the fairness" of the Court.
Such attacks on this Hon'ble Court is not a freedom of speech and expression, but it has done purposely in order to defame and disrespect the image of the Court", contends the petitioner.
Also Read - Toolkit Case: Bombay High Court Reserves Orders For Tomorrow On Adv Nikita Jacob's Transit Bail Plea
The Petitioner went on to submit that Sardesai is a "well known personally and various people take his statement as true and correct, therefore his statement on the top judicial body of his country indicates a threat to the society, which will lead to no trust in the judiciary and the justice will never deliver to the people because they will look at this Hon'ble Court with a questionable eye and all the respect of this prestigious institution will vanish."
The Supreme Court has registered a suo moto criminal contempt case against journalist Rajdeep Sardesai on a complaint filed by one Aastha Khurana alleging that some of his tweets scandalized judiciary.
In September 2020, the Attorney General for India, KK Venugopal, had refused sanction to initiate criminal contempt on the same complaint.
The petitioner referred to a tweet from 31.08.2020, wherein Sardesai had remarked saying "Clearly, court looking to wriggle out of an embarrassment of its own making", in the context of the Re. 1 fine imposed on Prashant Bhushan in his contempt case.
Another tweet from 14.08.2020 was also highlighted wherein it is stated that Sardesai compared the judgment in Prashant Bhushan's case to Habeas Corpus petitions of those detained in Kashmir.
Further reference is made to a tweet which was posted on 23.07.2020 and allegedly cast aspersions on (Retd.) Justice Arun Mishra. Though the tweet was later deleted, elaborates the petition, it received "huge media publicity" and "questioned the fairness" of the Court.
Such attacks on this Hon'ble Court is not a freedom of speech and expression, but it has done purposely in order to defame and disrespect the image of the Court", contends the petitioner.
Also Read - Toolkit Case: Bombay High Court Reserves Orders For Tomorrow On Adv Nikita Jacob's Transit Bail Plea
No comments:
Post a Comment