A Costly Picture

hock and awe. That’s the reaction in the media to the Supreme Court’s November 14 direction in the Justice P.B. Sawant (retd) versus Times Now defamation case. The apex court upheld the Bombay HC’s order: the channel must deposit Rs 20 crore and provide Rs 80 crore in bank guarantees before its appeal against the Pune court order awarding Rs 100 crore in damages to Justice Sawant is heard.

Reporting on judges involved in a PF scam, the channel had on September 10, 2008, displayed Justice Sawant’s photo while talking about Justice P.K. Samantha of Calcutta HC. It apologised for the error and scrolled the apology for five days. Nevertheless, Justice Sawant filed a defamation suit. Those who belong to the judge’s circles say the penalty has had a salutary effect on “the unaccountable and egoistic” media. Justice Sawant refuses to comment. “If I speak, it may attract contempt of court. It would also be against ethics,” he says. “Let’s wait for the final order.” Justice B.G. Kolse-Patil, a former judge of Bombay HC, says, “Prima facie, it’s a large amount. But why this hue and cry? The final order is pending. I’ve known Sawant for years...there were times he couldn’t afford more than two sets of clothes for his children. He’d share three ‘rice plates’ among five family members. He has no use for the money even if it is awarded.”