The Supreme Court told former Army Chief VK Singh on Wednesday that his statement attributing motive to the judges who decided his age row case was unacceptable. The court remarked that “bad days” would be in store for democracy if people of his stature made such remarks against the highest court.
Singh’s interview given to news agency ANI last month had provoked the Court to issue contempt of court notice to him on October 1. The former Army chief, who appeared in person in response to the notice, was defended by Ram Jethmalani. But the veteran lawyer was unavailable due to a previous engagement in another court.
Pulling up Jethmalani for taking the case “casually” and not even filing a reply, the Court reacted angrily when a junior lawyer sought four additional weeks to furnish a response. Attorney General GE Vahanvati produced a copy of the CD having the original conversation of ANI interview along with relevant transcript in English and Hindi.
The portion where Singh said that the judges did not decide in his favour as somebody was “pressurizing” them, angered the bench. “Its striking at the root of contempt,” the bench of Justices RM lodha and Hl Gokhale said. With Singh in attendance, the Court revisited the case where the General had decided to withdraw the petition on age row. “After you have withdrawn, you cannot make such a statement. We cannot allow courts to be scandalized in this manner,” the bench added.
The Court made it clear that regarding criticism of its orders there was no qualms. “We welcome criticism of our judgments,” said the bench, while terming it “serious” and “unacceptable” that anybody should attribute motive to the judgment. “If one can make remarks against highest court like this we are heading for bad days,” the bench observed, posting the case for hearing next on November 20.
The other contemnor, a national daily, got a clean chit from AG who said there was no “embellishment” to the original interview. Senior advocate Fali Nariman even offered an unqualified apology on behalf of the newspaper after pointing out that six newspapers carried the interview. But the Court was of the view, “Even publishing a statement like this is contempt” and requested Nariman to argue the law whether criticism of Court could transgress into contempt of court and still enjoy protection under right to freedom of speech.