"Marathi-knowing" judges will now hear Navakaal case

To this, Justice Desai said, “It is one thing tocriticise a judge or his report, and another thing to use unparliamentary language against him.” He read out headings of certain edits and asked, “If this is not personal condemnation, what else is?” Tulpule then replied, “The headings cannot be read in isolation. Moreover, the intention of the articles is not to condemn the judge.” The judge then said, “What do you expect readers to understand from such language. Whatever be your intentions, the literal impact on the readers is damaging.”

To this Tulpule said, “The English translations of the original Marathi edits do not capture the correct nuances, which is why the articles are termed `contemptuous.’ Language has proved a barrier in understanding the essence of Navakaal writings. If read in the correct perspective, the Marathi writings cannot be termed defamatory.”

Justice Sahai then asked Tulpule that if “he is serious about the language theory,” the matter cannot be heard by this bench. “If you claim that none other than aMaharashtrian can decide the true meaning of these edits, the matter should be transferred to a bench where both the judges are conversant with the language. Since I do not know Marathi, I am not confident of hearing this matter.” Tulpule then said he was ready to “translate the writings and convince the judges about their non-contemptuous nature.” But Justice Sahai said the authenticity of the translation presented by Tulpule could be disputed by the opposite party. Therefore, it was advisable not to entrust translation job to either parties. The bench therefore asked Chief Justice M B Shah to transfer the matter to another bench.

Meanwhile, Shekhar Nafade, special counsel appointed to assist the court in this case, told the court that Khadilkar’s affidavit did not mention that the English translation of the Navakaal writings didn’t do justice to them. Therefore, this crucial point be included in an affidavit-in-rejoinder.

Counsel for the state government Rajiv Patil today sought additionaltime for filing an affidavit on the government’s view in the matter.

The HC had issued suo moto contempt notices to Navakaal editor Jayashree Khadilkar-Pandey for those edits which said that Justice Srikrishna’s report on the 1992-93 Mumbai riots was biased. During the last hearing, Jayashree Khadilkar and her father Nilkanth Khadilkar claimed the court should serve notice to the latter since the edits were written by him. Senior Khadilkar pleaded he should be given a chance to justify the `edits’ in the open court. His affidavit claimed the edits did not cause any contempt of the judge. Moreover, Justice Srikrishna was heading a Commission of Inquiry and not a court, so any writing against him does not fall within the purview of the Contempt of Courts Act. The division bench of Justice Ashok Desai and Vishnu Sahai had asked advocate Nafade to determine if such a notice can be served to senior Khadilkar, since his name didn’t appear in print.