SC dismisses TV channel's plea against Sahara,slaps Rs 1L cost

The Supreme Court today dismissed a plea by a private TV channel seeking probe into contents of a CD allegedly having conversation between Sahara Group Chief Subrata Roy and an erstwhile scribe in his company by imposing a cost of Rs one lakh.
The apex court termed the plea of Mohd Arif, Managing Director of Channel One, as "ex-facie frivolous and vexatious" which deserves dismissal with exemplary cost.
The channel had filed an intervention application in the ongoing hearing of the case in which the apex court had in May 2011 initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against Roy for allegedly interfering with the probe in the 2G spectrum case.

"The applicant is not at all connected with the main case of 2G licences or allotment of spectrum or contempt petition filed on behalf of Rajeshwar Singh, Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate.
"The CD on which reliance has been shown has not been verified or authenticated from the laboratory about the conversation," a bench comprising justices G S Singhvi and K S Radhakrishnan said and added that "this court cannot enlarge the scope of the contempt matter.
"Application is dismissed. The hearing on the application has resulted in the loss of time of the court," the bench said while imposing a cost of Rs one lakh on the channel which will be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC) and in case of failure, the amount would be recovered from arrears of land revenue of the channel.

Meanwhile, senior advocate Ram Jethmalani, appearing for Roy raised preliminary objections on maintainability of suo motu contempt proceeding against him saying the apex court rule was not correctly followed in issuing notice and the petition was filed without the approval or knowledge of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General which is mandatory.
Identical argument was put forward by senior advocate Rajiv Dhavan, who was appearing for Upendra Rai, a scribe associated with Sahara India News Network and facing the contempt proceedings.