India's judiciary under fire for convicting journalists

"We live in a sort of judicial dictatorship," wrote Arundhati Roy, an activist and novelist, in an article in Outlook magazine.

She said the contempt law "arms the judiciary with formidable, arbitrary powers to silence its critics and to imprison anyone who asks uncomfortable questions".

Many of the paper's allegations relate to Sabharwal's controversial judgment in 2006 that unauthorised shops and other businesses running in Delhi's residential areas be closed down.

Thousands of businesses have been affected, and at least three people died when police fired on protesters last year.

The paper printed documents, and even a photograph of Sabharwal's letterbox, which purported to show that his sons had been running businesses out of his two homes, and were partners with two large commercial real estate developers in Delhi.

The paper said commercial property developers stood to gain as many shops and businesses were forced to relocate to malls and office parks. It accused Sabharwal of asking for the case to be brought to his court when there was a conflict of interests.

Sabharwal, writing earlier this month in the Times of India, denied any conflict of interests, and said he had never made a ruling for the benefit of his family.

He said his sons' businesses were registered at his official home only for postal purposes, without his knowledge. He added the businesses have since been registered elsewhere.

He also said that while his sons were business partners with mall developers, his sons were not involved with malls themselves, but instead were developing offices for software and technology businesses.

On Friday the Supreme Court said it would hear the defendants' appeal in January.

(Additional reporting by Palash Kumar)