NE LEGAL BUREAU
NEW DELHI, AUG 17
The Supreme Court on Monday framed larger questions for consideration in the 2009 contempt case against activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan, including what process should be followed in contempt cases involving corruption allegations against judges.
The top court took the step to hear arguments from senior lawyers on the three issues framed by it in the 11-year-old contempt case against Bhushan and Tarun Tejpal, a journalist.
It had issued a contempt notice to Bhushan and Tejpal in November 2009 after the former allegedly cast aspersions on some sitting and former top court judges in an interview to a news magazine ”Tehelka”. Tejpal was the editor of the magazine.
Observing that the matter before it has wide ramifications, a three-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra said it would like to hear the counsels on whether statements like making corruption allegations against judges can be made and the procedure to be adopted for dealing with them.
Bhushan told the court on Sunday that making corruption charges against the judges would not amount to contempt of court and mere utterance of corruption charge could not be contempt of court.
The apex court asked senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan – appearing for Bhushan – Shanti Bhushan and Kapil Sibal to address it on three issues – whether such statements can be made, in what circumstances they can be made and what is the procedure to be adopted with respect to sitting and retired judges.
The bench, also comprising Justices B R Gavai and Krishna Murari, posted the matter for next hearing on August 24.
At the outset, Dhavan said the court should consider certain questions and the matter be heard by a larger bench.
Dhavan also referred to the recent judgement in which Prashant Bhushan was held guilty of contempt for his two derogatory tweets against the judiciary and said the lawyer intends to file a review petition against the August 14 verdict.
He told the court that it appears that August 14 judgment suffers from many imbalances as in some parts the verdict says that allegations against judges “per se” does not constitute contempt.
Sibal, appearing for Tejpal, then said the matter should be given quietus (discharged).
The bench said even the court wants to give the case a quietus but there are certain questions which need consideration.
Dhavan said the questions posed by the court were very “meaningful” and suggested that the matter be examined by a constitution bench.
Shanti Bhushan sought adjournment of the matter by two weeks when the physical hearing is likely to be resumed.
