http://www.hindu.com/2008/08/07/stories/2008080754981400.htm
Court criticises media's role in Aarushi case Legal Correspondent "Irretrievable damage done to parents" New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday criticised the media for acting as a super investigating agency in the Aarushi Talwar murder case and tarnishing the image of the doctor-couple who lost their only child. A three-judge Bench, comprising Justices B. N. Agrawal, V. S. Sirpurkar and G. S. Singhvi, was hearing the 'Ghaziabad Judges' scam, allegedly involving judicial officers in Uttar Pradesh, sitting and retired Judges of the Allahabad High Court and one sitting Supreme Court judge. In the course of arguments, a question arose whether there was any agency over and above the Central Bureau of Investigation. Senior counsel Anil Divan cited media reports relating to the Judges' scam to drive home the point that a CBI probe was necessary to unearth the truth. Mr. Justice Singhvi referred to media reports in the Aarushi murder case and said that the media had acted as a super investigating agency. "See what happened," he said. "Irretrievable damage has been done to the couple, who lost their only child. This is unthinkable in a democracy." Mr. Justice Agrawal said, "We are not concerned with what the media says. They will criticise us also. If some high profile person is involved in some case, you [the media] will continue the show for the whole day. Media must know that it does not affect judicial minds." K. Veeraswami case Mr. Divan submitted that the governing law for sitting and retired Supreme Court and High Court judges was formulated in the K. Veeraswami case, which related to suspected offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. "For sitting judges, consultation with the Chief Justice of India is required before registering a criminal case. The President's sanction is also necessary before filing a charge sheet and the President is required to act according to the advice/opinion of the CJI." Considering the ground realities, he sought a direction for a CBI probe into the scam. Senior counsel Shanthi Bhushan, appearing for Transparency International, one of the petitioners, maintained tht there could not be a different yardstick for judges. Mr. Justice Agrawal said, "We are governed by Veeraswami judgment. No FIR can be registered against judges. We are not giving a certificate that there is no dishonest person in the judiciary. Black sheep is there everywhere." He said protection and immunity were given to judges to protect the independence of the judiciary. "Otherwise, courts will be flooded with complaints against judges. Today, we can pass an order against the Prime Minister or the President. If there is no immunity, we will not be able to pass such an order." Mr. Bhushan said the Supreme Court, by its judgment in the Veeraswami case, destroyed the judiciary by granting blanket immunity to judges and this judgment was the reason for the increasing corruption in the judiciary. Mr. Justice Agrawal intervened and told Mr. Bhushan, "See what happened in Justice V. Ramaswami's impeachment proceedings in Parliament [it was rejected]. We have no face to show to the world." When Mr. Bhushan found fault with an order purported to have been issued by the Secretary General (Registrar General) of the Supreme Court putting fetters on the investigation of the scam, Mr. Justice Agrawal said: "We want to know what fetters. We have serious objections. It is very serious. You are making allegations against the Secretary General, who is a member of the higher judicial service. It means you are making allegations against the Supreme Court of India." Mr. Justice Agrawal asked Mr. Bhushan to withdraw the allegations, but Mr. Bhushan maintained that the judiciary could not insulate itself by passing self-serving orders. Arguments will continue on Thursday.
