Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CR. M. P. No. ______ OF 2007 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.

1234 OF 2007

IN THE MATTER OF: VITUSHA OBEROI & ORS. VERSUS COURT OF ITS OWN MOTION. AND IN THE MATTER OF: Arvind Kejriwal 403 L, Girnar Kaushambi, Ghaziabad Amit Bhaduri A12, IFS Apartments, Mayur Vihar Phase I Delhi - 110092 Arun Kumar Professor of Economics, Room No. SSS-II 324 JNU New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi 110067. NO.3 Aruna Roy 278, Hauz Khas Apartments, Hauz Khas, New Delhi Dr. A.B. Dey D 17, Ansari Nagar New Delhi - 110029 Dr. Anup Saraya E 96, Ansari Nagar New Delhi Harsh Mander 6233 C6 Vasant Kunj New Delhi - 110070 Himanshu Thakkar 86 D, AD Block, Shalimar Bagh Delhi - 110088 Indu Prakash Singh 18 A, MIG Flats, Sheikh Sarai, Phase I RESPONDENTS APPELLANTS

APPLICANT NO.1

APPLICANT NO.2

APPLICANT

APPLICANT NO.4

APPLICANT NO.5

APPLICANT NO.6

APPLICANT NO.7

APPLICANT NO.8

New Delhi - 110017 J George HIPA Complex 76, Sector 18, Gurgaon-122 001 (Haryana) K.S. Subramaniam 349 Hauz Khas Apartments New Delhi 110016 Kumudini Pati U-90 Shakerpur, Delhi 92 Nikhil Dey 278, Hauz Khas Apartments, Hauz Khas, New Delhi Prabhash Joshi B 408 Nirman Vihar, Delhi 110092 Promod Chawla K 87 Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110016 Rajendra Yadav 2/36, Ansari Road, Dariyaganj, Delhi 110001 Ramaswamy Iyer 8N Sarita Vihar, New Delhi 110076 S.P. Shukla 3260, Sector D Pocket III Vasant Kunj, New Delhi Smitu Kothari J 33 South Extension I New Delhi 110049 Vijay Pratap 147 A, Uttarakhand JNU New Delhi - 110067 Vinod Raina Bharat Gyan Vigyan Samiti Young Women Asscoiation Hostel No.2 G. Block, Saket New Delhi. Mangesh Dabral 326 Nirman Apartments Mayur Vihar Phase I Delhi 110091

APPLICANT NO.9

APPLICANT NO.10

APPLICANT NO.11

APPLICANT NO.12

APPLICANT NO.13

APPLICANT NO.14

APPLICANT NO.15

APPLICANT NO.16

APPLICANT NO.17

APPLICANT NO.18

APPLICANT NO.19

APPLICANT NO.20

APPLICANT NO.21

APPLICANT NO.22

Pankaj Bisht 98 Kala Vihar Apartments Mayur Vihar Phase I Delhi 110091 Shailesh Gandhi B2 Gokul Apartment Poddar Road Santa Cruz (West) Mumbai 400054 Jaya Shrivastava J 12/1, DLF Phase II Gurgaon Shripad Dharmadhikary Dashera Maidan Road, Badwani, M.P. - 451551 Aseem Shrivastava J 12/1, DLF Phase II Gurgaon

APPLICANT NO.23

APPLICANT NO.24

APPLICANT NO.25

APPLICANT NO.26

APPLICANT NO.27

APPLICATION FILED ON BEHALF OF ARVIND KEJRIWAL AND ORS. TO BE IMPLEADED IN THIS APPEAL TO THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND THE OTHER PUISNE JUDGES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE APPLICANTS ABOVENAMED MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH: 1. This Application for impleadment is being filed by the Applicants, in this case, because this case raises a very basic and fundamental issue of the freedom of speech in relation to misconduct and corruption in the Judiciary. 2. The Applicants are concerned citizens of India who are a part of Civil Society and are concerned that the judgment in this case will adversely affect the fundamental right of free speech of the citizens of India including those of the Applicants for all time to come. It is submitted that apart from the view of the High Court, concerned members of the media, it is important for the Court to

take into consideration, the view of concerned members of Civil Society. 3. The Applicants in this Application are the following: i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. viii. ix. x. xi. xii. xiii. xiv. xv. xvi. xvii. xviii. xix. xx. xxi. xxii. xxiii. xxiv. xxv. xxvi. xxvii. Amit Bhaduri (Professor Emeritus, Economics, JNU), Arun Kumar (Professor of Economics, JNU), Aruna Roy (Founder MKSS, Social Activist, RTI campaigner), Arvind Kejriwal (RTI campaigner, Magsaysay awardee) Dr. A.B. Dey (Professor of Medicine, AIIMS), Dr. Anoop Saraya (Professor of Gastroenterology, AIIMS), Harsh Mander (Former IAS Officer and Campaigner against Communalism), Himanshu Thakkar (Director South Asian Network of Dams, Rivers and people), Indu Prakash Singh (President FACT), J George (Chair Faculty of Economics and Development Jaya Shrivastava (Women's rights campaigner), K.S. Subramaniam (IPS, Retd DGP), Kumudini Pati (Gen. Secy AIPWA, Central Committee Member CPI(ML) Liberation), Mangesh Dabral (Journalist) Nikhil Dey (MKSS, RTI and Employment Campaigner), Pankaj Bisht (Journalist) Prabhash Joshi (Senior journalist, former editor Jansatta), Promod Chawla (URJA Bharat 2000), Rajendra Yadav (Journalist, Editor of the Hindi Journal HANS) Ramaswamy Iyer (Senior fellow CPR, former Secy, Water S.P. Shukla (former Finance Secretary, GOI), Shailesh Gandhi (Convenor of NCPRI & RTI Activist) Shripad Campaigner), Smitu Kothari (Centre for Intercultural resources, Lokayan, Social activist), Vijay Pratap (CSDS, Lokayan, Social Activist), Vinod Raina (Founder Eklavya, Campaigner on education Aseem Shrivastava (Economist, former professor at various Universities) Dharmadhikary (Director Manthan, Water

Planning FEDB, Visiting Professor Delhi School of Economics),

resources, GOI),

issues)

4. The conviction and sentence of four journalists of the Mid Day for contempt for having done their journalistic duty in exposing judicial misconduct at the highest places, is not only an assault on the freedom of speech of the media, but sends out a very wrong signal to the people of the country that the High Court will not tolerate public exposure of misconduct and corruption within its ranks and will use the power of contempt to stifle such exposure,

notwithstanding the fact that the contempt is alleged to be of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has not thought it fit to initiate any suo moto contempt proceedings. 5. The Applicants are of the view, and believe strongly, that such a stand would deal a mortal blow to this precious fundamental right. The stand taken by the High Court in its Judgment is erroneous and antithetical to the fundamental principles of our republican

democracy and our Constitution in which the people of this country have been regarded to be the ultimate sovereign. It is an anathema to these principles to seek to prevent the disclosure of impropriety and wrong doing on the part of any public servant by civil society. 6. While it is important in any society that its judiciary inspire

public confidence, such confidence cannot be engendered by using the threat of contempt action to deter exposure of any wrongdoing in the Judiciary. This position has been consistent both in England and here and has been elucidated very succinctly by this Honble Court in Judgment reported in AIR 1965 SC 745 in the following terms: 142. Before we part with this topic, we would like to refer to one aspect of the question relating to the exercise of power to punish for contempt. So far as the Courts are concerned, Judges always keep in mind the warning addressed to them by Lord Atkin in Andre Paul vs. Attorney General of Trinidad, AIR 1936 PC

141. Said Lord Atkin, Justice is not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men. We ought never to forget that the power to punish for contempt large as it is, must always be exercised cautiously, wisely and with circumspection. Frequent or indiscriminate use of this power in anger or irritation would not help to sustain the dignity or status of the Court, but may sometimes affect it adversely. Wise Judges never forget that the best way to sustain the dignity or status of their office is to deserve respect from the public at large by the quality of their judgments, the fearlessness, fairness and objectivity of their approach, and by the restraint, dignity and decorum which they observe in their judicial conduct Public confidence in the Judiciary is created by the actions of the Judiciary and any reckless allegations against it are quickly seen to be what they are. In a free society, such allegations do not stick, if they are incorrect or reckless. The use of the power of contempt to stifle allegations the accuracy of which has not been disputed would only increase public suspicion about the Judiciary as a whole.
7. The Applicants respectfully submit that they, like millions of

citizens of India, have great regard for many things that the Indian Judiciary has done in the past, particularly to protect the cherished fundamental right of free speech. However, this High Court judgment is directly destructive of the same.
8.

With these thoughts weighing heavily on the minds of the

Applicants, most of the Applicants, and a few other prominent members of civil society, were forced to publicly reiterate whatever has been written by Mid Day and whatever has been said and written by the Campaign for Judicial Accountability at a

Press Conference on September 25, 2007 at the Press Club of India. The Applicants also issued a statement to this effect. A copy of the Statement is Annexed to this Application as Annexure A. It is respectfully submitted that the Applicants would like to share the distress of the alleged contemnors and would like to share the sentence imposed on them if the impugned erroneous view of the High Court is upheld. PRAYER
Therefore in light of the submissions made and contentions raised in this application, the Applicants respectfully pray that this Honble Court be pleased to: A. implead the Applicants along with the Mid Day journalists as an Appellant/Proforma Respondent to this petition B. mete out the same punishment to the Applicants as will be meted out to the Mid Day journalists. C. pass any other orders that this Honble Court deems fit in the interests of justice, equity and good conscience. APPLICANTS

Through KAMINI JAISWAL New Delhi: __/__/07 (Counsel for the Applicants)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CR. M. P. No. ______ OF 2007 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1234 OF 2007

IN THE MATTER OF: VITUSHA OBEROI & ORS. VERSUS COURT OF ITS OWN MOTION. AND IN THE MATTER OF: Arvind Kejriwal and ors. Applicants RESPONDENTS APPELLANTS

PAPER BOOK
INDEX Sl. No. 1 Particulars Impleadment Application with affidavit Page No. 1-8

2.

Annexure A- Copy of the statement issued by the applicants

9-12

KAMINI JAISWAL (Counsel for the Applicants)