Bar&Bench News Network
The Supreme Court on Friday allowed a plea by Senior Counsel Harish Salve (pictured, right) to initiate contempt proceedings against noted civil liberties lawyer, Prashant Bhushan (pictured, left). In an interview with the weekly Tehelka, he had made certain statements regarding Supreme Court Justice Kapadia's interest in a matter relating to Sterlite Industries, allegedly implying judicial impropriety in Justice Kapadia's behavior. Salve, who acted as amicus curiae on the matter, felt that such careless comments by a member of the Bar was "regrettable", and requested permission to file a petition for contempt against Bhushan.
Prashant Bhushan has been one of the strongest voices in the movement for judicial accountability, and is spearheading the campaign for public declaration of Judges' assets. In the interview, he had stated that Justice Kapadia heard a matter involving Vedanta Sterlite, despite owning shares in the company. However, the matter was subsequently clarified in a letter to the magazine by Senior Counsel U.U. Lalit, one of the counsels in the case, who made it plain that Justice Kapadia had made a full disclosure before starting proceedings on the matter, and asked if any of the parties had an objection to his adjudicating on the matter. When none of the parties raised an objection, Justice Kapadia continued to preside over the proceedings.
Salve has stated that he will refrain from filing the petition if Prashant Bhushan offers a sincere apology for misrepresenting the facts to the media.
Prashant Bhushan, undaunted, continued his campaign for judicial accountability by calling for the impeachment of Justice Dinakaran. Speaking at a seminar on 'Appointment and retirement of Judges' organised by the Karnataka Forum for Judicial Accountability, (KFJA), he stated that the committee appointed by the CJI to probe into the allegations against Justice Dinakaran was against the Judges Inquiry Act and would not be able to achieve its end. He claimed that there was documentary evidence of Dinakaran's disproportionate wealth and land holdings, and evidence of misuse of judicial office, and added, "The only option left is impeaching him by getting sufficient signatures from the members of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha."
|
- 1. "Sucking up to the judges. Salve really needs that?". Janardhan, Delhi
- 2. "While it is imperative to know what Bhushan has actually said, Salve's action is weakening the reform cause. Salve doesnt need to initiate contempt in order to teach discipline to Bhushan. Whatever may be Salve's motives, propriety and common sense demands that Kapadia ought to have recused himself, the moment he realised that he had a conflict of interests. To claim that he had consensual jurisdiction is a mockery of justice, a bad precedent and an audacious claim which deserves severe condemnation. Hail Prashant Bhushan.". Manikandan Vathan Chettiar, Chennai
- 3. "I feel that Mr.Salve ought not have acted as amicus curiae when another senior cousnel is fighting for reforms in the judiciary. There is immeninet necessity for judicial accountability other wise there cannot be justice to the citizens. I request Mr.Salve not to take up any petition against Mr.Prashant Bushan.". MOVIDI LAXMAN RAO, HYDERABAD
- 4. "Mr. SalvePlease disclose whether you have share in Vedanta or Sterlite. If you have, then please refrain yourself from the filing and/or continuing the contempt proceeding against Prashant Bhusan.". Dhiman, Calcutta
Related Stories
- Prashant Bhushan steps on gas to impeach CJ Dinakaran, calls on Parliament to sign motion
- Contempt notices issued to AAB officials; Bar Council demands Chief Justice step down
- Justice Sirpurkar to head Dinakaran impeachment panel
- Justice Shylendra Kumar puts pressure; Mayawati to Justice Dinakaran's aid
- Dinakaran din; Shanti Bhushan protests Rao's inclusion
- Dinakaran din; after P.P. Rao, Justice Sirpurkar's turn
- “State Judiciary in shambles”- CJI; Justice Dinakaran asked to go on leave; Justice Lokur takes over as acting CJ
Other News
- Economic Times: Indian law firms shying away from best friend relationships?
- Cash at Door scam: With CJI’s approval, CBI begins probe
- Qualified Lawyers Transfer Scheme Regulations, 2010 changes modus operandi for Indian lawyers: BCI Chairman assures immediate action
- Women get equal rights in guardianship and adoption
- SRGR Law Offices Senior Associate writes a book on the "Valuation of Intellectual Property Rights"
- OMM hires Pooja Sinha from Linklaters to strengthen its India practice
- Will the SC rectify its mistake? CBI convinces apex court to reopen Bhopal case
Kartikeya Tanna
![]()
![]()
Aug 31, 2010 | Kartikeya Tanna analyses how the law dealt with the Union Carbide Gas Slaughter in this second part of the two part series on the world's worst industrial disasters. comments (1)









