``I take full responsibility for the editorials. I should, therefore, be allowed to appear for myself and my daughter, although I haven't been served notice,'' Khadilkar's affidavit claimed. The affidavit has been filed before the Justice Ashok Desai and Vishnu Sahai in response to suo moto contempt proceedings against Navakaal for five edits which called Justice Srikrishna names for his probe into the '92-93 communal riots in Mumbai.

According to the father-daughter duo, the writings don't amount to contempt for three reasons: first, Justice Srikrishna was heading a commission of inquiry and not a court and therefore, ``assuming that edits are capable of lowering the dignity of thecommission,'' the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act do not come in the picture. Justice Srikrishna was discharging a public function, not a judicial one, and criticism of such an assignment does not amount to contempt, they said. Second, if the writings are ``scandalous and derogatory,'' they can be dealt with either by the Press Council of India or by a defamation suit filed by the judge in a criminal court. Since it's an attack on an individual judge, suo moto action cannot be taken by the court. Third, Khadilkar is justified in the writings and he'd like to argue the same in court. He should be given a chance to present the explanation.

After hearing the respondent Jayashree Khadilkar, who pleaded that her father be asked to show cause, instead of herself, the division bench today directed Shekhar Nafade, counsel appointed to find out if such permission can be given. The court said since the edits are not attributed to the writer's byline, it's difficult to decide if senior Khadilkar should beallowed to appear in person. The matter was today adjourned to November 24.

Nafade has also been asked to examine if Srikrishna Commission can attract provisions of Contempt of Court Act. He has been asked to find out the parameters for deciding if a statutory authority/commission is a court or not.