The Supreme Court's public relations department late on Tuesday issued a statement that the court had not initiated any criminal contempt proceedings against senior journalist Rajdeep Sardesai.
It clarified that information on the court’s website showing the case status was placed “inadvertently” and “appropriate action to rectify the same is under process”.
“This is in context with news item being flashed in some news channels about initiating suo moto criminal contempt proceeding against Mr. Rajdeep Sardesai by Supreme court, it is made clear that no such proceeding has been initiated against Mr. Rajdeep Sardesai . However status shown at Supreme Court website vide case no. SMC (Crl) 02/2021 has been placed inadvertently. Appropriate action to rectify the same is under process,” the short statement circulated via WhatsApp by the court’s public relations official said.
ADVERTISEMENT
The clarification came shortly after the media published information, based on the website status, that the court has suo motu registered criminal contempt against Mr. Sardesai on February 13.
The information published on the website indicates that the case was registered on the basis of a plea filed by Astha Khurana, represented by advocate Omprakash Parihar, that Mr. Sardesai had deliberately attempted to undermine the public faith and confidence in the judiciary with his tweets.
Mr. Sardesai’s tweets were in connection with the Supreme Court verdict, last year, punishing civil rights lawyer Prashant Bhushan with a ₹1 fine for his tweets “scandalising the court”.
ADVERTISEMENT
The information on the registration of a suo motu contempt case against Mr. Sardesai came as a surprise as Attorney General K.K. Venugopal had, in September last year, declined his consent.
In September, Mr. Venugopal had refused permission to initiate contempt against the journalist, saying in a one-page letter addressed to Mr. Parihar that “trifling remarks and mere passing criticism, though perhaps distasteful, are unlikely to tarnish the image of the institution”.
“I have given careful consideration to the tweets. I find the statements made by Mr. 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 reputation of the Supreme Court as one of the great pillars of our democracy has been built assiduously over years,” Mr. Venugopal had written in his reply to the contempt plea.
However, Ms. Khurana had pursued her case by filing a plea in the Supreme Court, saying the “contemnor tweet is of serious nature putting a big question on sovereign function of Supreme Court and their abiding nature to the Constitution”.