NEWS
SCHEDULES
COLUMNS
PREVIOUS TOURS
OTHER SPORTS
STATISTICS
INTERVIEWS
SLIDE SHOW
ARCHIVES

Rediff Shopping

Shop & gift from thousands of products!   Books     Music       Apparel   Jewellery   Flowers   More..      Safe Shopping

Court cites Rahul Mehra and friend for contempt

The Delhi High Court today issued contempt of court notices to Rahul Mehra, advocate, and his friend Shantanu Sharma, and asked them to reply within three weeks.

The hearing on a contempt of court petition filed against the two by the BCCI was then adjourned to August 24.

Mehra and Sharma had moved a public interest petition in the Delhi High Court against the Board of Control for Cricket in India and the Delhi and District Cricket Association, alleging financial irregularities.

The Division bench consisting of Chief Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice D K Jain agreed with the contention of counsel for BCCI and the Government of India that the petitioners were hogging the limelight. They were also appearing in various television programmes and writing articles in newspapers and magazines about the case while it was still pending before the court.

There was high drama in the courtroom when the case was taken up for hearing this morning. Counsel for the BCCI K K Venugopal mentioned the objections they had taken up in the last date of hearing. The two judges agreed with the counsel's viewpoint that the petitioners had committed gross impropriety by writing articles about a petition that is under consideration of the court.

The judges also asked the petitioners if they have put out the entire petition on the website Sports-Plus.org. The petitioners did not deny that they had a website, but refuted the allegation that the entire petition had been put on the website.

The learned judges were of the opinion that the two petitioners had committed contempt of court by writing articles in newspapers and on websites, granting television interviews, and appearing in panel discussions on a matter that was sub judice, and asked them to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them. The judges gave three weeks to the petitioners to file their reply.

The judges also directed the BCCI and DDCA to file their reply to the main petition before August 24, when the matter comes up before the court for hearing.

Earlier, government counsel submitted on behalf of the Union of India that since the BCCI does not get any grant or any other form of financial assistance from the government and is an autonomous body, the government has no locus standi in the present case. The counsel asked that the petition should be dismissed. BCCI counsel Venugopal also asked the court to dismiss the petition.

When asked to comment on the proceedings in court and the directive given to the petitioners, both Mehra and Sharma refused to say anything, on the grounds that to voice any opinion would entail their being in further contempt of court.